The Supreme Court “decided” the Tom DeLay Texas gerrymander case today. There was no opinion for the Court on most of the big issues. Here is the lineup – figure it out, if you can.
Kennedy, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts IIâA and III, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts I and IV, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, J., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts IIâB and IIâC [which nobody else joined], and an opinion with respect to Part IIâD, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Breyer, J., joined as to Parts I and II. Souter, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Roberts, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which Alito, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Thomas, J., joined, and in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, J., joined as to Part III.
Heh. Clear as mud.
The bottom line from today’s opinion appears to be this: the redistricting plan was invalid with respect to one district – this was a good old fashioned “vote dilution” claim under section 2 of the voting rights act. Justice Kennedy, along with the four “liberals,” agreed on that much. The rest is a mess, but it generally appears that the Court found no valid claim of partisan gerrymandering that was so extreme as to violate either the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution. The Court seems to have left the door open for such a claim in the future, but held that it wasn’t stated here.
I’ll try to read this ghastly thing carefully and post again later. Hamdan, the big “war on terror” case, will be announced tomorrow. The informed betting is that Justice Stevens has that opinion, which is bad news for the Bush administration.
Could you tell us if the Supreme Court will also be dealing with the precedent of redistricting whenever the balance of power shifts in a state?
<
p>
Thatis what upsets me the most. Texas had just been redistricted and the Republicans came into power and AGAIN redistricted the CD’s.
<
p>
Tradidionally it is done ONCE every ten years.
<
p>
Just curious…
and was rejected as insufficient to state a claim. Several Justices disagreed, but they lost. Here’s an excerpt from Breyer’s partial dissent:
<
p>
Can’t MIT come up with algorithms and the software to draw perfectly rectangular congressional districts thus eliminating all gerrymandering forever? Both parties are guilty of it and it only serves to keep entrenched pols entrenched.
😉
The current software out there that is used in redistricting starts by creating compact, contiguous districts…then enables the user to distort them by whatever partisan/demographic factors they wish. Rectangles would be unconstitutional, of course, since you have to have the same number of voters in each district.
Just proportional rectangles to make everyone shut up about the issue and stop fiddling.
The last branch of gvt I want drawing district lines is the unelected Judicial branch. God bless their independence, but this is an issue which needs to be kept in the hands of voters.
<
p>
TX Dems need to make and win their case in the voting booth, not before the bench. I think most fair-minded voters find the Delay plan unseemly and unfair irrespective of their political affiliation.
<
p>
If the Dems set their minds to it, and are not perceived as simply trying to win back an unfair, gerrymandered advantage, they’ll get some traction.
<
p>
It’s ironic that both the current gerrymander and the Dem’s previous version made for more extreme and partisan candidates on both sides of the aisle.
<
p>
This is never a good thing for political diversity.
<
p>
Someone call the MIT math department!
Having the judicial branch drawing district lines is less than ideal. But it is not because they are “unelected”, it is because what do they really know about drawing district lines? After all, independent commissions are “unelected” yet are likely a better solution.
<
p>
The problem is that “going to the polls” is largely meaningless if the rules of voting are such that it dilutes as much as possible the voices of the (then) minority party. Obviously both sides do this, as the Dems do in our own state.
<
p>
I think you are far too optimistic that Dems would “gain traction” on this issue in TX. First, most voters don’t know or care what gerrymandering is. Second, even if the voters DO care, if the districts are drawn in a such a way that Republican voters form a majority in most districts, then why would those voters be concerned about shutting Democrats out?
where all the votes count. Voting district shapes would then be meaningless.
<
p>
As for “unelected commissions,” they’re appointed by elected officials so there remains some accountability, however diluted.
<
p>
Hoyapaul makes the whole redistricting issue seem uninteresting and an issue below most people’s radar screen. He should give more credit to the average voter. They have common sense and know when their interests are being subverted. If the issue is publicized enough, people will get it. (Isn’t this a case where unlimited campaign funds would make a positive difference?)
<
p>
If a politician’s good intentions were all that mattered, fairness would reign. But one has only to look at MA’s own districts to see that every politician “does it.”
The typical Gerrymander starts by “packing” as many of the opposition ideally into one district (or whatever the minimum needed is). Then the Gerrymander sets about “fracturing” the rest of the opposition.
<
p>
What may come back and haunt DeLay is that the fracturing was too thin, I understand particularly in his own former district.
<
p>
Wouldn’t that be ironic. All this trouble for naught???