There’s a smile on the face of Tom DeLay this morning and much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left as the Supreme Court ruled that most of the DeLay-inspired gerrymander of Texas congressional districts is constitutional:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Republican-boosting Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay but threw out part, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents from office.
Indeed, DeLay’s handiwork was a piece of political art. As I mentioned in this post, it brought to mind a similar piece of legerdemain by California Democratic Congressman Phil Burton back in the redistricting scrums of 1980:
The result of Burton’s machinations became clear in 1982. When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, there were 22 Democratic and 21 Republican Congressmen. In 1982, following Burton’s manipulation of the system, there were 28 Democrats and 17 Republicans in Congress. In 1984, Republicans won a majority of votes in Congressional districts but failed to gain a single seat thanks to Burton’s gerrymandering.The map drawn up by Burton looked like he had given a monkey a crayon and allowed him to scribble on a map of the state. Burton’s own district featured so many twists and turns that the lines actually ended up splitting apartment buildings in two. There were lines drawn down the middle of streets so that one side was in Burton’s district and the other side given over to the Republicans. All of this legerdemain was necessitated by the changing nature of Burton’s district which had become gentrified and thus full of Republican voters. But it was made possible – like DeLay’s efforts in Texas – by the magic of computers and the science of demography.
To answer the argument that it’s perfectly alright to game the system in order to maximize one party or another’s political representation I would agree. This is exactly what DeLay was doing with his map by removing reliable Democratic voting blocs made up of blacks and Hispanics from Republican enclaves. The Supremes ruled that DeLay went too far but that his basic idea is perfectly legal and constitutional.
As a practical matter, this will mean jiggling a few district lines in order to more fully reflect minority concentrations of voters so that a candidate can potentially be elected based solely and exclusively on their ethnic background or race. Why this isn’t considered demeaning by minorities has always escaped me, especially since black and Hispanic representation would soar in Congress if, instead of concentrating a clear majority in one or two districts, minority candidates were recruited to run in races where there was a strong plurality of black or Hispanic voters. I think that the idea that whites won’t support a black or Hispanic candidate is almost dead. This won’t change the voting rights law or any SCOTUS decisions impacting redistricting. But it should be a reality taken into account by both parties so that more minority candidates can be elected.
Also of note is a part of the decision that may have huge ramifications down the road: The Court ruled that states may redraw district boundaries any time they wish rather than waiting for the Census report that comes out once a decade.
On a different matter, the court ruled 7-2 that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like _ not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital.The Constitution says states must adjust their congressional district lines every 10 years to account for population shifts. In Texas the boundaries were redrawn twice after the 2000 census, first by a court, then by state lawmakers in a second round promoted by DeLay after Republicans took control.
That was acceptable, the justices said.
“We reject the statewide challenge to Texas redistricting as an unconstitutional political gerrymander,” Kennedy wrote.
This could be very troubling for our democracy. As it stands now, most people do not know who their Congressman is. What would happen if people were shuttled all over the map every couple of years as one party or another took control of the statehouse? I am willing to bet that number would decline even further.
Beyond that, this aspect of the decision presents some interesting possibilities. It would make getting and keeping a Congressional majority on not just winning national elections, but also predicated on doing well at the state level. Will this give more power to national political parties who have the money and resources to push for statehouse majorities in order to maximize their clout in Congress?
The declining power of political parties over the last quarter century has been well documented. It will be interesting to see if this stops that slide and indeed, turns it around somewhat. More powerful parties means more party discipline, something both parties could do with a little more of.
And what really must be killing the lefties today is that DeLay is getting the last laugh – at least until his trial. Regardless of how his legal troubles fall out, DeLay’s legacy to Republicans in Texas seems secure.
UPDATE
I guess I forgot to mention that this puts a monumental crimp in the Democrat’s plans to take over the House in November. Since most observers believe that even with the court ordered re-drawing of districts it is unlikely that the Republicans will lose any seats in Texas, the mountain that the Democrats must climb to take control of Congress just got that much steeper.
And given some curious poll numbers in key states that have come out recently, the much ballyhood momentum the Democrats were touting just a few short weeks ago, may be slowing to a crawl. The GOP is not out of the woods yet, not by a long shot. But they may have stopped the bleeding and even begun to reverse some very troubling trends.
11:07 am
[...] Moran notes, correctly, that the real blockbuster is the Court’s holding that state legislatures can redraw district lines anytime they want instead of just once per decade. Which means, obviously, that local elections just got a lot more important vis-a-vis national business. Good news for federalism and better news for the GOP if it rolls craps in the Congressional elections this November but holds power at the state level. It’ll be interesting to see how various state legislatures take the news, and which ones move quickly to press the majority party’s advantage. [...]
11:07 am
[...] Moran notes, correctly, that the real blockbuster is the Court’s holding that state legislatures can redraw district lines anytime they want instead of just once per decade. Which means, obviously, that local elections just got a lot more important vis-a-vis national business. Good news for federalism and better news for the GOP if it rolls craps in the Congressional elections this November but holds power at the state level. It’ll be interesting to see how various state legislatures take the news, and which ones move quickly to press the majority party’s advantage. [...]
11:52 am
Supremes “Not Meddling” By Reversing Meddling In Single Texas District
...At odds in the case was the cleaving of the single Laredo congressional district, a move which critics charge “stealthily crossed a bordering line over 100,000 Hispanics,” which they noted was “unprecedented– the first time those words have ever bee…
12:21 pm
Court Nixes Part of Texas Political Map
WASHINGTON —The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Republican-boosting Texas congressi
12:22 pm
As I mentioned in this post, it brought to mind a similar piece of legerdemain by California Democratic Congressman Phil Burton back in the redistricting scrums of 1980”
When I was in college in the late 1980’s, I wrote a paper for my Political Science class about how harmful Burton’s (and other Democrats in California) actions were to democracy. As a Reagan Republican, it appeared to be an effort to reverse the election and ensure that Republicans would be limited.
Now, I still feel the same. I don’t celebrate Delay’s actions any more than I did Burton’s 25 years ago.
And, much like Delay proved that he could use the tactics that the Democrats taught him, the Democrats will benefit from this ruling as much as the Republicans and soon our districts will only be drawn for political convenience rather than shared geography and communities.
12:35 pm
SCOTUS rules on Texas’ gerrymander
The Supreme Court has ruled on the political gerrymandering / redistricting of Texas (from SCOTUS): The Supreme Court, splintering widely, on Wednesday found an insufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering in the Texas congressional redistricting. It …
12:43 pm
Adam:
Surely your research showed that gerrymandering has been an American tradition since the founding of the Republic.
The problem is that the tools used by gerrymanderers have become so much more precise and elegant, that modern day Burtons are armed with extraordinary stats so that they can cleave and slice and dice until they get what they want.
DeLay’s sin was that he went overboard. Usually, to forstall court challenges, the party in power will not go too far in its partisan line drawing. DeLay simply didn’t care – like Burton in 1980 – and ended up doing a partisan hack job.
1:13 pm
Rick: Agreed.
1:42 pm
“it is unlikely that the Republicans will lose any seats in Texas”
Don’t be so sure of that. The TX ledge has managed to piss off even the most die hard Repbulicans. Not enough to make them vote Dem, but maybe enough to keep them at home instead of the at the polls. Doggett will be safe in his district even after it is redrawn.
1:46 pm
Just because gerrymandering has been around a while, and just because the Supreme court says it is pretty much legal, it doesn’t mean it’s something we ought to celebrate. What DeLay did was use his power to push and tweak the rules and law in order to further solidify his power… just like he did to help get the medicare bill passed and just like the way he was able to neuter the house ethics committee…. all so he could use that power to push for more Republican lobbyists, hitch rides on corporate aircraft, take golfing trips to Scotland and so on…. just the kind of behavior that makes me proud to be a Republican.
And it doesn’t matter that the Democrats have and would do the same… we’re supposed to be better than they are. what a terrific tagline for the GOP: The Republican Party… no more corrupt and self-serving than the Democrats!
5:21 pm
Steve.
Right on target. What is there to celebrate as a Republican?
What the supremes have done with their “enlightened” decision is to ensure an endless cycle of retaliation by Republicans and Democrats.
By taking down the legal constraint the the 10 year census produced as a deterrant for all out abuse, the Supreme Court just ensured an endless food fight between parties.
What a way to run a Democracy
Now it is legal to use Gerrymandering at any time, in any place, by any one.
The myopic view taken by the Supreme Court in their decision to disregard census numbers as a restraint for Gerrymandering is appaling. As a Republican (or Democrat) there is not a darn thing to celebrate about that STUPID decision. That is unless you don’t mind to be put in different voting districts every time there is a change in the ruling party in power.
Gerrymandering as far as I am concerned is a cheap, low life way of unfairly taking advantage of our Democracy. The same Democracy that so many people have fought and die to defend. It was invented by Politicians for the benefit of Politicians NOT THE PEOPLE.
5:52 pm
What do you think the courts do when they mandate Congressional representation for minorities? Gerrymander, that’s what.
Of course, since it’s done for such noble reasons, not to many on the left seem to care that the practical effect of that gerrymandering is the concentration of people who vote Democratic.
There is no doubt that gerrymandering, as it is practiced today, is harmful to our democracy. But the drawing of district lines has always been done with politics in mind. It’s just that with the polarization we have today, there is less comity about it.
It used to be that incumbents – especially long term incumbents – of either party were drawn pretty safe seats no matter who was in charge in the state capitol. These kinds of gentleman’s agreements were quite common until the court mandated redistrictings that serve two purposes; marginalize minorities by limiting their representation in Congress and increase the number of Democratic seats.
What DeLay did was extreme – as what Burton in 1980. As long as their is partisanship, you will have excesses on both sides.
8:34 pm
I think this decision will strengthen the impression of many non-Americans, including myself, that democracy in America is becoming a hollow shell, no more meaningful than what you find here in Hong Kong.
Anyone who is part of gerrymandering is an enemy of democracy. Anyone who fails to object to gerrymandering is an enemy of democracy. The reference to Democratic gerrymandering in the early eighties is typical of American political myopia. For someone like me, from the outside, it just means that the whole system is corrupt, not just one side.
Sometimes American commentators say “It’s always been like that. You can’t get away from it.” Well, other countries have got away from it. The province I come from in Canada, Saskatchewan, had gerrymandering in the first election I was aware of in 1971. The incumbents lost, partly because of the public’s anger about gerrymandering. The new government, rather than gerrymandering on its own account, established independent electoral commissions, and there’s been no trouble since then.
Americans: If you can’t deal with this very simple problem in your system, no one has any reason to regard your system as a model, not in Iraq, not anywhere.
10:07 pm
Drawing political boundaries is, by its very nature, a political act. We can either have elected representatives in charge of redistricting ie people we elcect and can hold repsonsible”[, or we can pass this dirty but necessary chore off to the courts or some other body of “enlightened beings”. Which seems to be the preferred option for those who believe polticis is just “too corrupt”. (thank you John McCain)
If you are a proponent of constitutional orginalism or Scalia like textualism, you have to applaud their observation about the frequency of re-districting. The Constitution requires seats in the US House to be re-apportioned between the states every ten years. It does not perscribe nor does it require states to follow any fixed schedule for drawing the boundaries of federal congressional districts. That is a matter addressed by state constitutions and statutes. State laws also control the re-districting process for state offices.
The Court has correctly opined that “what is not forbidden is permitted.”
Practically, I don’t think you will see this cause as much disruption as some predict. Getting a legislature to draw boundaries is a difficult and lengthy process, and in many cases it also involves the infamous “pre-clearance” of the US Justice Department as well as numerous law suits by interest groups who purport to represent “the people” or some group of otherwise perpetually aggrieved citizens. Politicians as a class (homo sapiens) tend to avoid pain, so while you may see an occasional spectacle. It’s not very likely.
10:59 pm
Steve.
“What is not forbidden is permitted”
That is a rather narrow interpretation of the law taken by the supreme court.
I tought they were called upon to rule on what is forbidden or permitted.
Laredo, TX is a perfect example of this idiotic way of interpreting the law.
Re-Distriting in Laredo, TX was made an exception to the rulling because in that case the re-distriting affected minorities. As a result Henry Cuellar (D) lost to Henry Bonilla® by a narrow margin that came about by re-distriting Laredo’s population. The court ruled that minorities were affected therefore the re-distriting in Laredo, TX was wrong. But the re-distriting had the exact same effect and it was done with the exact same intentions in Anglo districts and that is OK with the Supremes!!. On top of this the re-distriting was done way before the 10 year census and that is also OK !!
So in short the supremes think that re-distriting is not allowed when it affects minorities, but is allowed when it affects Anglos. And now the 10 year census that is suposed to justify change is no longer needed. What may I ask justifies change now? Delay like ass holes justify change now? Because if that is the case we and our Democracy are in trouble now my friend.
The census taken every ten years gives re-districting boards a clear view as to how to proceed in their task.
What the supre court did was to allow politicians to do wherever they like, when they like. No longer real numbers from census matter. For the life of me I don’t understand how you or any one can support this idiocy.
For you to say that there will not be much disruption is rather naive. Just because re-distriting is difficult does not mean it will not be done. The fact is that this decision by the Supreme Court just made it much less difficult.
The stakes are extremely high for Republicans and Democrats now, and you can bet top dollar that the incentive to “re-district before your foe does, will be overwhelming”. Is like an arms race now.
Hell, no responsible party chairman will propose NOT to redistrict when you have the chance now!! Is now or never for the two parties. Republicans just opened Pandora’s box in Texas, now they, and all Americans will suffer the consecuences.
The Supreme Court just made an incredible mistake. Scalia (You mentioned him) is a joke. The guy has no credibility left after the debacle in Florida. Where was his so called “textualism” then?
What the divided decision by the Supre Court did was to give politicians the go ahead to undermine our democracy at will.
And we are “creting” a Democracy in Iraq
What a joke.
11:22 pm
Elbridge Thomas Gerry (July 17, 1744 – November 23, 1814) was an American politician, a member of the Jeffersonian Republican Party.
11:30 pm
It’s looking like they will lose Delay’s seat. That’s better than nothing and a help. If we get two out of texas, the end of the conservative juggernaught will be upon us.
10:21 pm
Steve, look abroad. This problem has been solved elsewhere. In most democracies, gerrymandering is not a problem. To say “Drawing political boundaries is, by its very nature, a political act” is just sleight of hand. In some ivory-tower realm of philosophical purity, it’s true enough. In practice, a perfectly ordinary group of people genuinely trying to do the job with perfectly ordinary common sense will get you close enough. To say that this is impossible in the United States is to condemn the US political system to a kind of perpetual political hell. You don’t have to put up with this, Americans. You, too, can achieve the lofty level of political purity that most people living in democracies take for granted.
8:26 pm
OKlsf4yiezKRF a1CzFUhlDby wze0fv9ppG