DeLay’s re-redistricting going to the Supremes

December 12, 2005

Now this will be an interesting court case.

The Supreme Court said Monday it would consider the constitutionality of a Texas congressional map engineered by Rep. Tom DeLay that helped Republicans gain seats in Congress.

The 2003 boundaries helped Republicans win 21 of the state’s 32 seats in Congress in the last election up from 15. They were approved amid a nasty battle between Republican leaders and Democrats and minority groups in Texas.

The legality of a mid-decade re-redistricting scheme that may have run afoul of the Voting Rights Act seems pretty significant. If the justices reject DeLay’s scheme, the former House Majority Leader will have hatched a legally dubious plan that ultimately led to his indictment for naught. If the justices uphold the scheme, it’s a serious setback for the Voting Rights Act and redistricting in general.

I wonder how Alito would rule?

Gee – you don’t think this case winding its way to the Supreme Court had any bearing on Miss Harriet being initially appointed.

:-;

Well slap me with the conspiracy supporter label and wrap me with tinfoil!

  • And so we come at last to the true reason why Republicans have been so determined to pack the courts. Not for the religious whackos, but to give the veneer of legality to their schemes.

  • Ding ding ding!! We have a winner!!

    This will be a good test case for the newly appointed Chief Justice as well.

    This should be an interesting (and very telling) decision.

  • States’ Rights, which were inapplicable in Bush v. Gore, will make a magical re-appearence.

    Results-oriented jurisprudence.

    Fixing the law around the policy, anyone? Cops say criminals rarely change their MO.

  • And so we come at last to the true reason why Republicans have been so determined to pack the courts. Not for the religious whackos, but to give the veneer of legality to their schemes.

    Interestingly enough, the WaPo’s Fred Hiatt made a point this morning that complements Mr. Flibble’s idea nicely:

    The GOP, having captured both houses of Congress and the White House, could press lobbyists to hire only Republicans and give money only to Republicans. The money would guarantee dominance in state legislatures. The legislatures would redraw congressional districts so that Democrats could never win. And if anyone objected, too bad; Republican-appointed judges could be counted on to slap down any complainers.

  • 1. Court ‘s right-wing majority nullifies 2000 election, puts Bush in despite popular vote loss, short-circuiting vote recount. (Much) later recounts suggest this action by the court swung the election.

    2. Bush manipulates intelligence to gin up a war in 2003. In 2004 this illegitimate war started by an illegitimate President using illegitimate means is used to scare up enough votes that election tampering in Ohio and probable vote fraud swing the election to Bush.

    3. Texas electoral redistricting rammed through despite Justice Department opinions that doing so violates existing law.

    4. 2006 Supreme Court opinion, depending on Bush appointed justices, backs redistricting scheme, solidifying Republican grip in the House.

    At this point there’s no reason to grant legitimacy to the decisions of this Supreme Court. If they back the redistricting plan, then when and if the Dems ever get back in power, it’ll be time to dust off FDR’s court-packing schemes. Only way to counterbalance years of hard-right appointments, and to repudiate the illegitimate Bush years.

  • “Results-oriented jurisprudence”

    Oh God! I love that! Especially the irony or internal inconsistency of that term–perfect. Did you have the honor of coining it yourself, Davis X.?

  • Can anyone comment on what possible ramifications overturning the redistricting plans (yeah right) would have on Texas? Do the districts revert to per-scheme boundries? Would 7 recently elected Repubs have to face tougher challenges in districts that were not hand picked by Delay? Can we line tham all up and shoot them? What?

  • Here’s a guess: Alito will rule the scheme constitutional and legal, but, due to some detail, will find some way to rule against any similar scheme by Democrats in other states in future cases, say potentially California.

  • This will be a very, very important case as far as showing just how well the right wing has succeeded in politicizing the judiciary. If they uphold DeLay–and I agree that the smart money says they will–I’d argue that it raises the stakes for the entire fight for political power in this country. It would be enough to wonder how we could ever win, in a game where the opposition effectively sets the rules.

    And I agree: “results-oriented jurisprudence” is a great phrase.

  • And I agree: “results-oriented jurisprudence” is a great phrase.

    Not original with me, not by a long chalk. Goes back to Bush v. Gore days, at least.

    It’s the legal equivalent of the old chemistry lab report dictum “To acheive best results, draw curves before plotting data points….”

  • The GOP victories in 2002 resulted in their control of the Texas House in addition to the Senate. As a result, the Texas Legislature was called into session in 2003 to redistrict the state’s congressional lines in favor of the Republican Party. A number of Democrats left the state, going to Oklahoma, and later New Mexico, to deny a quorum for voting. Helen Giddings, the recognized negotiator, was arrested in May of 2003, but later the arrest was called a mistake. Texas House Speaker Craddick apologized to Giddings and then ordered the Sergeant at Arms to incarcerate Giddings in the state capital buildings.

    On May 26, 2005, a Texas judge ruled that a committee formed by DeLay had violated state law by not disclosing over $600,000 worth of fundraising money, mostly from the credit card industry, including $25,000 from Sears, Roebuck & Co.[27], and $50,000 from Diversified Collections Services of San Leandro [28]. Some of the money was spent on manning phone banks and posting wanted posters on Federal Highways calling for the arrest of Democratic legislators with an 800 number to call if seen after the Democratic caucus left to Oklahoma in order to prevent redistricting legislation from passage. The Federal Highway Administration offered to cooperate in arresting the Democrats, forcing the Democrats to travel to Oklahoma by plane instead of by automobile.

  • Thought just occurred to me – I hope this isn’t too late in the thread that no one sees it… The point was made the other day that Delay’s redistricting may come back to bite him in the butt, because it diluted his district by making it less Republican, assuming, without ethics charges that his was a safe seat and that he could afford to spread some of his Republican voters around to help other redrawn districts. Now with the ethics charges his seat is in trouble and he could sorely use that additional Republican support that he gave away with redistricting. The Supreme Court will hear the case in March and announce its ruling by June. Presumably, if the SCOTUS finds a problem with the redistricting, the districts would revert back to their original boundaries for the 2006 election. And who would benefit by this?? Tom Delay sure could use that support he gave away…
    Say it ain’t so – but is the Supreme Court taking this case in order to help Tom Delay???

    • Comments are closed.