TexasCHLforum.com

Can't be having the states manage their own affairs, can we? That wouldn't be "fair"

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/ ... fight.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I sure hope they put enough zigs and zags in there to keep Sheila jackson lee in office! I don't know what we'd do without her bold leadership and thoughtful comments.

Anyone want to guess which other 8 states are fully covered by this section 5 compliance hooey?

I would guess ANY State that is not already fully Democratic!

And here's a picture of our best bud George signing an extension of the bill until 2031.

texasmusic wrote: And here's a picture of our best bud George signing an extension of the bill until 2031.

Yup, this really sticks in my craw. GWB was not an angel (actually, not a single president has been). The fact that federal judges approved the Balkanization of Texas is extremely offensive to me. I won't say more beyond that.

Could someone please refresh my memory on how the fed is able to do this in the states and why?

texasmusic wrote:



And here's a picture of our best bud George signing an extension of the bill until 2031.

One, shame on GW. What kind of deal did he make with the Dems that the payoff was signing that extension? Second, I can see that the bulk of the states that fall under this mess are former "Confederate" states...but two questions then stem from that: Why AZ and AK, not to mention why are AR, TN, and NC not involved in this? How did they manage to skate out? The whole thing STINKS.

C-dub wrote:Could someone please refresh my memory on how the fed is able to do this in the states and why?

Long history of denying certain individuals and groups of people effective representation in the vote. For example: poll taxes, local councils deciding who could vote and who couldn't, etc.

Funny how new black panthers wielding night sticks at polling places isn't voter intimidation worth prosecuting but voting districts drawn by elected legislators requires federal court intervention.

Actually, it isn't funny. At all.

74novaman wrote:Funny how new black panthers wielding night sticks at polling places isn't voter intimidation worth prosecuting but voting districts drawn by elected legislators requires federal court intervention.

Actually, it isn't funny. At all.

According to the federal government, reverse discrimination is legal, except they had the marketing people rename it "Affirmative Action".

Constitutional issues aside, what will this do to the total number of Texas Representatives and the overall party balance?

The Annoyed Man wrote:Constitutional issues aside, what will this do to the total number of Texas Representatives and the overall party balance?

We picked up 4 additional representatives*, if I remember correctly (for a total of 36 representatives). And, according to the newspapers in Austin and Dallas (ya gots your basic left and your basic right, there) there'll probably be no net effect with the redrawn districts, if they stand. The originally drawn districts, though, would have added 4 seats (possibly 3) to the Republican fold.

Of course, politics is all funny bidness... take Kay Granger for example. She's a Republican who tends to get re-elected in what many people think is a Democrat majority district. So, who the heck knows.

* Whoops - originally said it was 10 additional districts - went back and checked and it's just four.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Constitutional issues aside, what will this do to the total number of Texas Representatives and the overall party balance?

I don't think they could alter the number of our representatives. That should be set by the census.
I've been doing some reading on wikipedia trying to understand all this. Here's some cuts from the article Bush v. Vera where the feds came in and stopped some districts which were obviously gerrymandered to provide reverse discrimination.

As a result of the 1990 United States Census, Texas was entitled to three additional congressional districts. In a called session in 1991, the Texas Legislature decided to draw one new Hispanic-majority district in South Texas (District 28), one new African-American majority district in Dallas County (District 30), and one new Hispanic-majority district in the Houston area (District 29).

The Court found that the district lines were not justified as an attempt to remedy the effects of past discrimination, since there was no evidence of present discrimination other than racially polarized voting. Since racially polarized voting only served to make a case for a violation of § 2, and the plan was not narrowly tailored to remedy a § 2 violation, the bizarre shapes were not justified.

So I've really only succeeded in confusing myself further about this. Bush gets his districts trumped by VRA in 1996... but goes on to sign the extension in 2006?

And now the game's afoot. Abbott has filed an emergency stay with the supreme court.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11 ... cting-map/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The fundamental issue here is: Is the federal government entitled to redraw district lines in a right that is granted to the state? The federal government claims that they had the right to step in because the districts were racially unbalanced, but the law states that the federal government may only approve or disapprove district mapping (preclearance). The issue at hand is whether ANY federal appointee is allowed to _remove_ the right of a state to determine voting districts.

Regardless of "historical preponderance" and exigency, the actions of the San Antonio-based Federal court represent (IMHO) an extreme overstepping of bounds.