Looks like Delay's re-map of Texas may hold. SCOTUS influence

[splat@14]

with recent appointees seems to sew it up - doubt they'll get enough votes to overturn anything. Don't understand how otherwise intelligent human beings can turn a blind eye to this sort of injustice.
Splat


Read all comments at;
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/005040.html

On edit, more at Kos; http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/1/184450/8692

Kahlil Williams writes:


I attended the oral arguments and just returned to my desk. A couple of notes about the proceedings.

While Paul Smith focused predominantly on partisan gerrymandering (which, mid-decade, should only be used in for legitimate political purposes), Nina Perales' comments were dominated by Section 2 vote dilution claims, which focused on Districts 23 and 25. These, along with 24 and 28, were really the focus of the court. Justice Roberts pressed her on the "magic number" needed to determine Henry Bonilla's district as an opportunity to elect, and not merely majority-minority (which allowed it to pass Section 5 muster).

There was absolutely no mention of the DOJ's involvement, or careerist v. political appointee battle.

I'd be happy to provide more info if need be, though I'm sure there are lots of reliable sources out there as well.


Bruce Cain writes:


I was able to attend the arguments today, and am willing to give my impression, albeit from political science eyes. There was not much sympathy for the argument that a mid-decade redistricting for purely political purposes is unconstitutional. A majority of the judges seemed reluctant to restrict the ability of legislatures to re-do redistricting, particularly one re-doing a court drawn plan. Absent a clear standard of political unfairness, they were open to the argument that the Republican legislative plan merely redressed the perceived
residual unfairness of the Democratic plan that was perpetuated by the Court. Given that and given that redistricting is first and foremost a legislative task, it seemed that most of the Justices did not want to restrict the right of the legislatures to "fix" problems mid-decade.
After all the courts ask legislatures to fix problems mid-decade, why shouldn't the legislatures have the right to decide that themselves?

The one ray of hope for the plaintiffs seemed to be the section 2 argument about district 23. By my estimate, there might be five votes for saying that seat violates section 2, but even here, I would not bet the bank. The fact that 30% of the Latinos voted for a Republican Hispanic seemed to raise questions about how cohesive the Laitno bloc voting is, and Roberts pushed very hard on the question of what, if not 51% Latino, was the definition of a real opportunity seat.

Even if the paintiffs prevail on the section 2 issue, it seems to me the legislature could fix that and keep the Republican biases in place. I certainly could if given the charge. All in all, not a good day for the opponents of mid-decade redistrictings from where I sat.

[napi21]

1. Talkiing heads are saying Kennedy will be the deciding vote . n/t

[acmejack]

2. I figured we were hosed from day one.

Fairness has never really entered into the discussion in this Country, especially in matters of voting rights. More so in the South, and even to a greater degree when it involves double dealing with the rights of minorities. Why that has been going on for centuries around here, considerable expertise has been developed over time.

One would have to be very stoned to expect a decision out of this Court which would be partial to the Democratic/liberal bloc in any case, IMO.

[splat@14]

3. Agree. I live in East Texas and my jaw drops to listen to folks defend

one catastrophy after another from this administration. Same lock step of my senators seems to be in fashion in the highest court in the land.

[Toots]

4. No surprises here

They will only get bolder and bolder. No Law or Constitutional Right is Sacred. They will have their way and America be damned.