DRAWING THE LINE
Will Tom DeLay’s redistricting in Texas cost him his seat?
by JEFFREY TOOBIN
Issue of 2006-03-06
Posted 2006-02-27
For three days in October of 2003, Tom DeLay left his duties as majority leader of the House of Representatives and worked out of the Texas state capitol, in Austin. During the previous year, DeLay had led his Republican colleagues there in an effort to redraw the boundaries of the state’s congressional districts. For more than a century, congressional redistricting had taken place once every decade, after the national census, but the Texas Republicans were trying to redraw lines that had been approved just two years earlier. Several times during the long days of negotiating sessions, DeLay personally shuttled proposed maps among House and Senate offices in Austin. Once, when reporters glimpsed DeLay striding through the corridors of the state capitol, they asked him about his role in the negotiations. “I’m a Texan trying to get things done,” he said.
Before the end of the month, the Republicans had pushed their plan through both houses, and it paid off in November of 2004. The Texas delegation in the House of Representatives went from seventeen to fifteen in favor of the Democrats, to twenty-one to eleven in favor of the Republicans. Martin Frost was the third-ranking Democrat in the House when the Republicans eliminated the district he had represented for twenty-six years. “I knew what DeLay was doing,” Frost told me. “I didn’t like it, but he wasn’t just trying to get me, he was trying to get as many Dems as possible. I went ahead and ran in one of the other districts. It was almost impossible to win, and I didn’t. But I went out with my boots on.”
The struggle over redistricting amounted to a Promethean display of political power by DeLay, and his subsequent downfall has been similarly epic. DeLay’s recent travails, which include a criminal indictment in Texas last year and his resignation as majority leader, can be traced to the redistricting fight. Today, his victory in that battle looks fragile. On March 1st, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the Texas congressional map, and the outcome is by no means clear. In the first major case to be heard by the two new Justices, John G. Roberts, Jr., and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., the Court will weigh the constitutionality of the Texas plan, which represents just one of the partisan gerrymanders that have transformed Congress in recent years. The Republican majority in Texas and the Bush Justice Department are asking the Court to preserve the Texas plan. But DeLay’s political fortunes have changed so much that, paradoxically, the best thing that could happen to him now may be for the Court to strike down the plan he created.
Interesting history of the Texas redistricting and DeLay's role in it.
The new Justices, Roberts and Alito, have modest public records on voting-rights matters, and neither had much to say on the subject during the confirmation hearings. In Alito’s now famous 1985 application for a promotion at the Justice Department, where he asserted his belief that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion,” he also briefly addressed voting rights. “In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in . . . reapportionment,” he wrote. At the confirmation hearings, Alito rebuffed suggestions by Democrats that this statement meant that he opposed the principle of “one man, one vote,” which was at the heart of the Warren-era apportionment decisions. “I do not see any reason why it <‘one man, one vote’> should be reëxamined, and I do not know that anybody is asking for that to be done,” Alito testified. “Every legislative district in the country and every congressional district in the country has been reapportioned, has been redistricted numerous times in reliance on the principle of ‘one person, one vote,’ and the old ways of organizing state legislatures have long been forgotten.” Nevertheless, Roberts’s and Alito’s conservative orientations suggest that they may vote the way their predecessors, Rehnquist and O’Connor, did on this issue, and the decision will turn on Kennedy’s vote.
more...
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060306fa_fact