The fiasco in Austin

My wife and I were just discussing the redistricting that is now being pushed through the state capitol. Can anyone tell me what law gives the Republicans the power to redraw the lines outside of the normal time frame? Is there an actual clause anywhere that says that if judges do the redistricting that the legislature can (or has an obligation to) revisit the issue years down the line?

My guess would be one of two things:

(1) There's no law that says it can only be done every 10 years. Perhaps it is just traditionally done whenever the # of congressial seats are reapportioned due to the new census coming out?

or

(2) The court version was basically "here are your districts until you come up with something reasonable".

That's all that I can think of.

 

It's required to be done after the census, but there's nothing that says it cannot be done during the interim.

We've just never had it come up in Texas since the Democrats have controlled the Legislature since Reconstruction.

And hey, they wouldn't be wasting money now if the Democrats hadn't run off to Oklahoma. This all could've been passed during the regular session if not for that. Blame the Democrats for drawing it out and making it cost more as much as the Republicans for insisting it be done.

 

There is nothing wrong with what the Republicans are doing (and I'm not just saying that because I am one). Our political system is based on someone getting the most votes. This is one way to help one party get the most votes. However, this is no guarentee.

The candidate who has the most money/funding usually wins as well, but we still let Ross Perot run his campaign. And he didn't win. This redistricting is not going to ensure anyone a victory just as a lot of funding won't ensure a win either.

 

Sorry, mrpaige, but this is nonsense, imo. The map you would have gotten at the end of the regular session, that was being pushed through without discussion or public imput, would have been far worse. It was a legitimate political move by the House Democrats and I applaud them for it. You can bet they didn't want to do it.

andymoon, it sounds like there is a state employee in your family.

Princess, they are making several districts that are about 65-35% Republican. That are Republican districts already, but held by incumbent Democrats. It's really a little more complicated than you make out.

 

I'm not trying to make it sound like that. All I'm saying is that this is all part of the process. But still, the plans do not make it so that Republicans will always win. It depends on who the candidates are, who turns out to vote and even the weather (yes, silly things affect elections for those who do not know).

Please don't think I'm being naive. If there's anything I know, it's voting behavior and politics.

 

My question to you is when did the Republicans, who were in the minority (some would say they were a nonexistent minority in the "Solid South" of Democrat states) run away to Oklahoma to prevent the duly elected representatives elected by the people of Texas from fufilling their duty? Try never. Even though the Democrats perpetually drew the district lines to get as many Democrats elected as possible (which was their right as the majority party), the Republicans still participated in the progress. The Democrats, used to being in power for all those years, decided since they weren't in power to take their toys and run away, thus preventing the state legislature from doing its mandated duties of redrawing the district lines. Often times, a federal judge will demand that the lines be redrawn in the interim between censuses. There was nothing legit about what those Democrats did at all. It was a simple case of "If I don't get my way, I'm going to run away." So childlike, but so typical.

 

That may very well be true, but if one is going to complain about the cost, one have to at least acknowledge that this could've been done during the regular session in one way or another. And if Republicans should just "accept it" now as has been suggested. Then perhaps the Democrats should've just accepted it back during the regular session.

And hey, I supported that plan since it gave Austinites a taste of what we had to live with in the Panhandle for DECADES without anyone in Austin caring a single bit.

 

A little more spice for the stew.


HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Local & State

July 8, 2003, 3:34PM


Dewhurst: Senators have problems with redistricting map
Associated Press

AUSTIN -- Democrats and some Republicans in the Texas Senate aren't satisfied with a congressional redistricting map the House produced, meaning changes to the plan are necessary, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said today.

"There are some concerns by members of the Senate on the House map that came over last night. So we're going to have to go to work on that map if we're going to see a redistricting plan come out of the Senate," Dewhurst said.

Dewhurst, a Republican who presides over the Senate, also said he wanted to be involved in the drafting of the GOP-backed House plan but he wasn't included.

The Republican-controlled House rolled over Democrats' objections and gave final approval 83-62 early Tuesday to a map that redraws the state's congressional districts in favor of Republicans.

It could send as many as 21 Texas Republicans to Congress. Right now Democrats hold a 17-15 edge in the delegation.

Among the senators who don't like the House map is Sen. Bill Ratliff, R-Mount Pleasant, who said the House proposal would hurt representation for his region.

"I cannot vote for the House map," Ratliff said. "It obliterates northeast Texas. That is the part of the state that I represent. ... Texarkana would be represented by somebody in east Dallas County."

Ratliff said if he agrees to support a modified map and votes to bring it up for debate, he would have to have assurances that it would remain intact through the rest of the legislative process, even through a House-Senate conference committee.

Senate rules require a two-thirds vote before debate is allowed in the 31-member chamber.


It seems that there a some unhappy Republicans who are finally starting to get enough backbone to make their unhappiness public. Good.



I love the quote from Senator Bill Ratliff, R-Mount Pleasant:


Among the senators who don't like the House map is Sen. Bill Ratliff, R-Mount Pleasant, who said the House proposal would hurt representation for his region.

"I cannot vote for the House map," Ratliff said. "It obliterates northeast Texas. That is the part of the state that I represent. ... Texarkana would be represented by somebody in east Dallas County."

Ratliff said if he agrees to support a modified map and votes to bring it up for debate, he would have to have assurances that it would remain intact through the rest of the legislative process, even through a House-Senate conference committee.


Sorry, Princess. This issue really has me worked up. I didn't post on it for a long time because the whole thing gets me so pi**ed off.

I apologize if I came across badly.

 

Deckard-no hard feelings!

Even if the Rep's COULD gain 21 seats, it doesn't mean that they will. It all depends on voter turnout, which is shaky.

This isn't the first case of dissention within a party. Happens all the time. I'm sure there are some Dem's who would accept the plan.

I think the main reason Ratliff is upset is out of fear of losing. And if it's not, this would not be the first time that areas far apart were in the same district. In Houston, parts of Baytown and Pasadena were linked all the way across south Houston by this thin strip of land. It's ridiculous. Redistricting is never done fairly or out of the sole good for the public. Why is this news?

And mr.paige is right. If Dem's are complaining now b/c the Rep's are wasting time and money, then they should not have walked out, which also wasted time and money. It's not about which side is right or wrong, it's just about the argument.

 

Governor Perry ASKED the Federal judges to draw the districts. He could have called a special session and tried to come to an agreement. It was his choice to have the judges draw the maps. Now that Mr. DeLay wants to have redistricting to pad his House majority, regardless of the turmoil it might cause in Texas, Perry suddenly sees things differently.

You are certainly free to see to see things differently yourself.
I most assuredly do.

 

Was the entire Legislature born after 2000?

Where was Bill Ratliff (who I know is a Republican, and maybe he did vote against previous plans) from roughly 1960 to 2000 when people from DENTON were Representing the northern half of the Panhandle?

And, once again, why does this only piss people off now? Why weren't they mad when our voting "rights" were taken away for forty plus years?

If it were up to me, I'd let the Democrats end the redistricting debate right now in exchange for 40 years of back funding for the Amarillo Air Force Base.

It is just very interesting to me that people who pulled this same crap for decades are suddenly so very offended by it. Did it just never occur to anyone that the power structure could change hands? That it would be okay to screw Republican voters for years because what can they do about it? There seem to be all sorts of Texan saying that somehow relate to chickens coming home to roost, yet, judging from the outrage, that possibility never ever occurred to anyone.

Take the time to care about your fellow man when you're in power, and hopefully your fellow man will treat you well when he's in power and you're not. But the treating well part is only expected of Republicans. There's shock and outrage when they act like Democrats.

On a lighter note, the way this seems to be going, it's going to take until 2010 to settle the redistricting debate anyway. Maybe they need to start now just to get it done in time.

 

Man, I love you! This is exactly the point! The Dem's are acting like a bunch of kids. They're the kids who cheated you the whole game and then get mad when you still end up winning.

I can't believe I want to do this when I grow up!

 

I understand and of course I respect you despite our difference in opinion. We can't all think alike, can we?

 

I don't get this attitude, mrpaige, although I've seen it before. It's like Austin and state employees are some monolithic group who decide everything and don't give a damn about the rest of the state. It's just not true. Many folks from the Panhandle work here for the state. I know some myself. One recently helped move some furniture for us that we'd bought with his pickup.

I've already expressed sympathy for your base being closed. It happened here a few years ago. But you have the mistaken idea that your area is unfairly singled out for bad treatment by "Austin". You may not be aware, although you would be if you had lived here for over 20 years... as we have, that the Legislature has often interfered with how Austinites want to run their city. There is a price to be paid for such close proximity.

 

Thanks, we sure as hell can't! It would be a dull world if we did.

 

Here's a serious question for everyone who's outraged and upset by redistricting: is it the fact that redistricting is taking place in an off year that's making you upset? Or is it that the plans are so obviously gerrymandered to ensure Republican victories (or attempt to, at least)?

I'm just curious as to whether those of you who are upset would not have been upset had the original redistricting plan from earlier this year (or one very similar) been presented in 2010?

Is it the timing? Or is it the gerrymandering?

And if it's the latter, were you outraged in 1991 when Democrats packed the then-eight Republicans into heavy Republican districts and gerrymandered the rest of the state so that Democrats won 21 of the 22 other 1992 Congressional races despite the Congressional vote being roughly equally Democrat and Republican statewide?

 

I single out Austin because it was Austinites who were the most outraged by the first map since it split the city to basically dillute the Austin vote. They were outraged, and they want us all to be outraged, too.

But why should I be outraged since they weren't outraged for us when the Democrats did that to us for years and years and years. Had Austinites said "I'm outraged the Panhandle vote is dilluted because of politics" maybe people from the Panhandle would be sympathetic now that such things are being attempted on Austin.

As for the airbase, Bergstrom was closed in a large round of base closings with recommendations made by a bipartisan committee charged with closing down a huge number of bases.

The Amarillo Air Force Base was closed as punishment for not voting for LBJ, during a time of large scale military build-up. That's quite a different animal. And given the effect on the Amarillo economy at the time, it would be like Republicans closing the University of Texas because Austin didn't vote for George W. Bush in 2000.

 

Two things, the Texas Constitution requires the Legislature redraw the Congressional districts during the first REGULAR session after the census. Once the Legislature failed to come up with a plan, the Legislative Redistricting Board is required by the Texas constitution to take over. Apparently the Governor can come back later and call a special session once the LRB plans aren't adopted, but I guess the LRB has to take a shot at it.

Secondly, at the time the Democrats still controlled the Texas House. Perhaps Mr. Perry thought they'd get a fairer plan from the courts after looking at what the Democrats put together in 1991.

 

Some states, such as Iowa, have politically independent non partisan redistricting commissions that do things on the basis of demographics.

Seems to me that that is the best way to do handle this kind of thing; more fairness, less fuss.

Edit: here's the article

July 8, 2003
Redistricting, a Bipartisan Sport
By EARL BLUMENAUER and JIM LEACH


WASHINGTON
Congressional redistricting is about as interesting as someone else's genealogy. But occasionally the subject produces headlines, as it did two months ago when Democratic members of the Texas Legislature fled to Oklahoma to avoid creating a quorum to address the issue. Their desperate maneuver failed; Republican leaders have convened a special session on redistricting and the State Legislature will continue to debate the issue today.

Despite the public perception that the drawing of legislative maps is an insider's game of no particular relevance, the health of American democracy hinges on how state officials approach the issue. If competitive elections matter — and to much of the world they are what America stands for — then redistricting also matters.

Using redistricting to gain advantage over one's opponents has been going on almost since America was founded. "Gerrymandering," the term to describe the process of creating strangely shaped legislative districts, dates back to 1812 or so, when Elbridge Gerry devised a legislative map in Massachusetts to benefit his political party's interests.

The courts have occasionally waded into this legislative thicket, principally to protect the one-person, one-vote principle but also to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act. But redistricting simply for partisan advantage — so long as it doesn't result in less minority representation and isn't too geographically egregious — is not generally considered grounds for court interference.

It is, however, a matter of profound importance to our system of government. A few partisans should not be allowed to manipulate the landscape of state and national politics by legislative line-drawing. But that's exactly what has happened.

Gerrymandering has become a bipartisan pastime. California Democrats produced a plan that turned a closely divided Congressional delegation (22-21) into a 28-17 Democratic advantage after the 1980 reapportionment. After the 1990 reapportionment, Georgia Republicans were able to turn a 9-1 disadvantage into an eventual 8-3 majority. In fact, Republican control of the House, won in 1994 for the first time in 40 years, was probably due more to shrewd redistricting than to the much-publicized "Contract with America."

In the wake of the 2000 census, candidates for governor and even obscure state legislators who would have a hand in drawing new legislative boundaries received unprecedented attention. In an unusual role reversal, some members of Congress even contributed money to state campaigns and hired their own lobbyists to represent their interests in state capitols.

The effort paid off. In big states that Republicans came to control, they were able to make gains. In Michigan, incumbent Democrats were forced into races against each other. In Pennsylvania, Democratic-leaning districts were eliminated altogether. And though the 2000 presidential election made clear that Florida is evenly divided on party preferences, it sends 18 Republicans to Congress and only 7 Democrats.

Democrats, meanwhile, did their own manipulating where they could, picking up seats in Georgia, North Carolina and Maryland. Battles are now brewing in New Mexico and Oklahoma as Democratic state legislators try to tailor districts to their party's advantage — just as Republicans are trying to do in Colorado and Texas.

More than either political party, however, the real winners in the redistricting games are incumbents. Nationwide, in 2002 only eight incumbents were defeated in the general election — and four of those lost to other incumbents. On average, last year Congressional incumbents won with more than two-thirds of the vote.

One response to all this, of course, could be indifference. Political manipulation is to be expected. Besides, despite the best efforts of partisans of both parties, Congress is still almost evenly divided, with only a slight Republican tilt.

But the consequences of entrenched incumbency should concern us all. Without meaningful competition in 90 percent of all races in the House, representatives become less accountable to voters and citizens lose interest in democracy.

More subtle consequences also unfold. When control of Congress rests on the results of those 20 to 30 races that are potentially competitive, the political dialogue in these campaigns, and legislative strategies in the House, become skewed. The few competitive races become playgrounds for power brokers who specialize in expensive, divisive and manipulative campaign techniques.

In Washington, legislative initiatives are frequently distorted in an effort to keep the vulnerable few in the political cross hairs. Bills on issues like farm policy or free trade are often framed to force members to choose between constituencies — farmers and unions, for example. Bills on health care may force members to choose between doctors and lawyers.

There is also a profound problem that is not subtle at all. Primary elections in districts that are overwhelmingly Republican produce candidates generally to the right of the average Republican, while more liberal Democrats usually emerge from primaries in districts that are overwhelmingly Democratic. The political center — where most Americans are most comfortable — gets the least representation in Congress.

In short, the current system produces a House that is both more liberal and more conservative than the country at large. Members are less inclined to talk and cooperate, much less compromise. The legislative agenda is shaped more to energize the political base than to advance the common good.

It doesn't have to be this way. Iowa, which has about 1 percent of the United States population and only five representatives in the House, saw as many competitive races in the last election as California, New York and Illinois combined. (For the record, those three states account for 101 seats in the House). Iowa is so competitive largely because it has an independent redistricting commission that is prohibited from considering where incumbents live when it draws new legislative maps.

What works for Iowa could work for the nation. The formula for avoiding inequities, undue partisan advantage and political dysfunction is the creation of independent redistricting commissions. Arizona recently followed Iowa's example, and such a commission has been proposed in Texas.

These commissions offer the best hope for taking partisanship out of the redistricting process. The public should insist that candidates for governor and state legislatures favor the development of strong nonpartisan redistricting plans.

Competitive elections are essential to the American system of government. Just as antitrust laws are necessary for a strong economy, so redistricting reform is critical for a healthy democracy.



Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon, and Jim Leach, Republican of Iowa, are members of the House of Representatives