BREAKING NEWS: Court Rules Against Texas Dems

[CO Liberal]

Sean Hannity just announced it. I'll look for a link.

ON EDIT: Just found a link:

* * * * * * * * * *

Federal Panel Rejects Texas Dems' Lawsuit
Associated Press

AUSTIN, Texas - A three-judge federal panel in West Texas on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by senate Democrats hoping to derail a new round of redistricting in Texas.

The Democrats argued that Senate rule changes by Republicans to further the redistricting effort violated federal law.

The judges, who listened to two hours of oral arguments Thursday in Laredo, dismissed those claims but withheld a decision on an amended complaint of threats to arrest Democrats and require them to pay fees for their failure to appear at a special legislative session on redistricting.

<more>

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6757415.htm

[goobergunch]

1. Goobergunch to Court:

Fuck you, you Repuke stooges.

[0007]

2. bummer!

I thought just maybe it would go the other way.

[Duncan Grant]

3. The 'Civil Cold War' just heated up...

"Yet far from uniting the people, the president's ideologically narrow agenda has seriously divided America. His most partisan supporters have launched a kind of 'civil cold war' against those with whom they disagree." -Al Gore, 8/7/03

[Hawkeye-X]

4. Still not over yet..

The Colorado Supreme Court has the same dilemma with the Repuke forced redistricting, and of course, the Dems challenged it. Fortunately for us, the CSSC has a Democratic majority, and should rule for us. If that case happens, then the Colorado Repukes has to go to the federal court, and if it happens, then it'll also rule against them, and even if the Colorado Repukes has to drag it to the US Supreme Court which will do nothing but reject the appeal and allow the CSSC ruling to stand, enabling the Texas Dems to fight again.

Of course, the Texas Dems should appeal their case, so it could be consolidated whether or not the gerrymandering should be once a decade after census or not.

Hawkeye-X

[CBHagman]

5. I'd like to know who appointed the judges.

That might be an interesting story in itself.

At any rate, it'll be interesting to see what happens next. Are they going to take it further? Personally, I think DeLay and Perry both should be hung out to dry, and I hope this haunts them virtually the rest of their careers. This sick and power-mad bunch deserve the mother of all comeuppances, and it's bound to come sooner or later.

[arcane1]

6. grrrr.... me too!

snip-
The court withheld a decision on a complaint of threats to arrest Democrats and require them to pay fees for their failure to appear at the second special session.


:grr:

[carnival]

7. Who Appointed the Judges

One was a Carter appointee, one was a Ford appointee and the third was a Republican appointment.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi carnival!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Bandit]

14. What was Ford ?

Ford is a Republican also so two were appointed by Republicans.

[underpants]

8. Can you say "legislating from the bench"

I'll contribute $50 to DU if it's NOT a Repube judge or Repube appoointed judge.

[LastDemInIdaho]

10. What is wrong with "legislating from the bench"?

It fixed sodomy, AA, abortion and many environmental laws.

Were those so bad? Is it worth losing a few to win the majority?

[PROGRESSIVE1]

9. We must win in California....

and that damn monkey Arnold must loose!!! If the Rethugliklansmen get Texas and Colorado they will try for Ohio next! We must stop Rove and Bush! No on the RECALL and YES on BUSTAMANTE!!!

[PDittie]

12. This was expected

Here's how this will (probably) go:

The special session convenes Monday, 9/15.

The Senate will seat a quorum, and by tradition, a "blocker" bill will be introduced, requiring a two-thirds majority.

Lt. Gov. Dewhurst has indicated that he will dispense with this custom, changing the rule to a simple majority.

Then the Texas Senate will take up redistricting, and barring something completely unforeseen, pass it.

Then the battle shifts to a challenge in federal court on the constitutionality of the newly-redrawn districts according to the Voting Rights Act, with the plaintiffs' contention being that minority voters will be disenfranchised.

This may or may not be completed by the time November 2004 rolls around, meaning (if not) that the current districts would remain in place.

Those maps were approved by the same court, when the Leislature had essentially this same bottleneck in 2001, with the parties' roles reversed.

Long-term: if the new plots withstand challenge, then the Repukes have successfully gerry-mandered themselves control for a decade or more.

[J B]

13. Redistricting IN ITSELF was never illegal.

Just politically nuclear and wrong.

[Proud_American]

15. Not so J B

The TX Constitution calls for redistricting once every ten years after the census. That was done in 2001 and even though the lines were ultimately drawn by the courts; redistricting was done. While the TX Const doesn't explicitly prohibit more frequent redistricting, I think that any reasonable interpretation of what it does say would preclude another round of redistricting until 2010 (next census).

[ibegurpard]

16. You got it

I CANNOT see how the Supreme Court would uphold revisiting redistricting unless it has been court-mandated.