The fiasco in Austin

So the Democrats were going to do this with just control of the House? Perry chose to have the courts do it. Now he's decided, with a very unsubtle nudge from DeLay, to open up this can of worms.

There are many more Republicans at the Capitol upset with all this than have come out in the public eye. This is not as popular with them as you might think. Many are afraid of retribution if they speak out.


SamFisher, Republican Senator Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio proposed just such a commission, and has for years. It got some support in the Senate. The Speaker of the House wouldn't let it come up for consideration. And Perry had no interest in it.
Thanks for the article.

 

No, they weren't going to get anything quite as nearly gerrymandered as in 1991. Of course, very few Legislatures ever get to put something together so patently gerrymandered.

But it could've been obvious that the only way it was going to get done without compromises that Perry was uneasy with making was to not go back to the Legislature. Or perhaps he just thought it was the only way it got done.

I mean, if we're going to ascribe motives to the Governor, shouldn't we attempt to perhaps explore all the possible motives? Or are you so tight with him that you know what he thinks and why he does the things he does and we can skip any other possible explanations?

All I'm saying is that allowing the courts to settle the problems that the courts had with the plans presented at a time when oppposing parties controlled each of the houses of the Legislature does not necessarily mean that Gov. Perry is always in favor of letting the courts settle redistricting issues.

This idea that if not for Tom DeLay, Perry would defer to the courts on redistricting when given the option may or may not be the case. Unless the Governor comes out and tells us, we're never going to know.

 

I agree, and once the Republicans have had 150 years to settle the score, we can go to a non-partisan commission.

Seriously, I do think such a commission could be a good idea if put together properly. We would've liked one for all those years in the Panhandle.

And certainly we could've had more Republicans elected to office in Texas in 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998 and 2000 had the Democrats not worked so hard to divert the democratic process after the 1990 census, for example.

Heck, we might not be talking about redistricting now had the results in 1991 not been so one-sided. Had there been a fair plan then, we would probably have a Republican majority in the Texas Delegation to Congress already.

 

Redistricting is done every 10 years following the Census. Perry asked the courts to draw the maps instead of calling a special session (geez, I'm repeating myself). DeLay's top aide has been in Austin "helping" the Republican leadership. DeLay has spoken out about it. They are very upfront about the whole thing. I'm surprised you haven't noticed.

mrpaige, why all the angst? Six Democrats were elected from REPUBLICAN districts. Could the maps have been MORE Republican? Certainly. But they were drawn by the courts and the courts considered them fair. The Republicans could have gained more seats in the next election if they picked better candidates to run in those districts. Lord knows, they have the money. DeLay couldn't wait for the next election.

Oh, and it's a good idea to wait 150 years to bring fairness to the process. Yes, that's the ticket.

 

But the two things with Perry may well be unrelated.

I don't deny that DeLay has a heavy hand in the redistricting happening now, but that doesn't have anything I can see to do with what Perry did in 2001. I don't know why it keeps getting mentioned that he didn't call a special session then. What difference does it make? That's my point. There seems to be motives ascribed to Perry's actions, as if he would be happy with the current districts if not for DeLay.

I know DeLay is the driving force, but that doesn't mean that Perry is fer it, too, even without DeLay's influence.

I guess I just don't understand the constant references to Perry not calling a special session (to deal with a difference issue, by the by) back then and calling one now. To me, it's irrelevant that he didn't call on then.

No angst from me. Why all the agnst from you? Why can't you just be happy with the map presented during the regular session and let the Republicans gerrymander the way the Democrats have for the last 150 years in Texas? Just accept it. That's what we were told to do, and that's what we're still told to do.

I thought it was obvious that was a joke (hence the "seriously" on the next sentence). But I am fascinated by everyone's extremely new interest in fairness. I don't recall all this support for a new, fairer system in 1991.

And I honestly don't think the Republicans should be dealing with this now. But I think that since they are, those who aren't in power should just deal with it just as we dealt with it all those years when we were disenfranchised. It's just that all this sudden interest in fairness will always fascinate me. Why it is that the calls for fairness are virtually silent when the Democrats are in charge and doing their best to stop the democratic process and louder than all get-out when Republicans do the same thing will always fascinate me.

The reason I argue these things is not because I think the Republicans are right. I don't think they are. I argue to try and show that the arguments on the other side are often hypocritical based on the fact that the calls for fairness did not exist when the Democrats were being unfair to people you don't know who live closer to four other state capitals than they do to you.

I will continue to ask where the outrage was when we were getting screwed. I will continue to wonder why people all of a sudden want fairness when they had no problem at all with unfairness for decades before. Deal with it, we were told. And we did.

And now that it's happening to someone else, we say "deal with it", but you don't. You get outraged. You want the system changed. And, to us, that says that you think you're somehow better than us. It was perfectly okay for us to be told to deal with it. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, the rules must be changed!

So yeah, it's annoying. One of the reasons a person can "deal with it" is knowing that things won't always be that way. That eventually the tides will turn and we can tell those who've looked down their noses at us and told us to deal with it will be having to deal with it themselves. And yet, you want to deny us our earned turn at the table.

To many, that would be considered unfair.

 

I think you are being hypocritical. Everything about your posts basically comes accross as "it's payback time." That's fine and dandy but why don't you ask yourself if things had been the other way around for you, would you ask for fairness for other people being screwed? I don't think you would.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, the Democratic party was conservative in the South and when it changed, many dixiecrats became Republicans. So, aren't some of the old hands in the Republican party to blame as well?


I'd like to point out that as a 20 year old, I really don't care about who screwed who over before my time. I'm interested in fairness now and for the future. But because I'm now in Mr. Paige's shoes, I am getting angry and outraged and it isn't turning into a constructive "my generation will get it right" type of anger, I'm waiting for my chance at payback too.

 

from mrpaige:

from Deckard:

Did you even read this post in the "socks" thread?
At least you're interested enough to post what you think. And I disagree.

You're at the table. I hope you enjoy the meal.

 

In my previous post, the stuff in bold wasn't supposed to be, but I couldn't figure out how I was doing it.

Maybe I'm getting tired.

 

Can't say how the situation would've been had things been different because they were never different for me to know.

But, as I've said, the point of my posts was to point out that it seems hypocritical to me to all of a sudden be interested in fairness when fairness was not a consideration at all prior to this. I do not think it's right to perpetuate the situation by being unfair.

I just don't like the attitude that Austinites or Democrats are somehow better than Panhandle people or Republicans. That they don't have to play by the same rules that we had to because it's unfair.

It was unfair then, and it's unfair now. And we would've liked either for there to be some interest in fairness over the last 40 or so years or at the very least, some acceptance by those being screwed now (and there are those being screwed now) as we were told to just accept it as the way things are.

There shouldn't be a double standard just because we're from the Panhandle or Republican.

 

I read it, and I think that deep down, we agree on the issue itself. What's going on now is wrong, and what was going on then was wrong.

I guess what it is that I would like is some widescale acknowledgement that we were wronged before. All we see from the Democratic side of the aisle is simple outrage, as if it is just unprecedented to attempt to gerrymander the congressional districts. And that's hypocritical because they were some of the worst offenders in the past.

What I'd like to see is the Deomcrats in the Lesgislature come out and say "We were wrong all those years when we systematically disenfranchised Texas voters, and we're sorry. We realize now that we're on the other side of the fence how bad this is. We deeserve no better than what we're getting now, but we would hope that instead of payback, we could put aside our huge mistakes of the past and make an honest effort to make this process fair for all voters, Republican or Democrat, in the future."

They should do their best to mean all this, too. And then they could talk about a non-partisan commission to handle redistricting, etc. I think people would support that, but there has to be some acknowledgement of the sins of the past and something approaching an apology for me to allow the Democrats to take the high road.

But this whole attitude that it wasn't wrong when Democrats did it that's coming from the leadership makes me want to see them get their commupance.

 

There's nothing that says they can. There's nothing that says they can't.

Here's the only thing the Texas Constitution says:

The Legislature shall, at its first regular session after the publication of each United States decennial census, apportion the state into senatorial and representative districts, agreeable to the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of this Article. In the event the Legislature shall at any such first regular session following the publication of a United States decennial census, fail to make such apportionment, same shall be done by the Legislative Redistricting Board of Texas, which is hereby created, and shall be composed of five (5) members, as follows: The Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Attorney General, the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Commissioner of the General Land Office, a majority of whom shall constitute a quorum. Said Board shall assemble in the City of Austin within ninety (90) days after the final adjournment of such regular session. The Board shall, within sixty (60) days after assembling, apportion the state into senatorial and representative districts, or into senatorial or representative districts, as the failure of action of such Legislature may make necessary. Such apportionment shall be in writing and signed by three (3) or more of the members of the Board duly acknowledged as the act and deed of such Board, and, when so executed and filed with the Secretary of State, shall have force and effect of law. Such apportionment shall become effective at the next succeeding statewide general election. The Supreme Court of Texas shall have jurisdiction to compel such Board to perform its duties in accordance with the provisions of this section by writ of mandamus or other extraordinary writs conformable to the usages of law. The Legislature shall provide necessary funds for clerical and technical aid and for other expenses incidental to the work of the Board, and the Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall be entitled to receive per diem and travel expense during the Board's session in the same manner and amount as they would receive while attending a special session of the Legislature. (Amended Nov. 2, 1948, and Nov. 6, 2001.)

 

Why is it likely that it will be struck down? There is a legal basis. The Texas Constitution doesn't say you can't. The Texas Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that the section of the Texas Constitution grants to the Legislature "the power to make, alter, and repeal laws not expressly or impliedly forbidden by other provisions of the state or Federal constitutions."

Will there be lawsuits? It's not unlikely, especially when considering that every plan gets several lawsuits. The courts were still dealing with lawsuits relating to the 1991 redistrciting as late as the 1998 elections.

I don't know that this redistricting increases the chances of the courts making changes along the way to the districts, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted the Texas Constitution to basically say that if it doesn't say the Legislature can't do something, they can do it.