And Why Not?

30 June 2006



Supremes OK Most of Texas Redistricting

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Tom DeLay-led redistricting of Texas was constitutional in principle, but one district had been racial gerrymandered and must be redrawn. The redrafting isn’t much of a problem, but the Supremes deciding that state legislatures can redistrict whenever they feel like it is a big deal.

Under the Constitution, congressional districts have to be redrawn after each census (which occurs every decade) to account for changes in population. In the case of Texas, a state court redrew the boundaries after the 2000 census with some input from the state legislature (and readers of Molly Ivins know just how swift the Texas lege is). After the 2002 elections, Texas Republicans had control of the state legislature, and guided by Congressman Tom DeLay, they redrew the boundaries for the 2004 election. Before they did that, Democrats sent 17 members to the lower house in Washington and the GOP 15. Afterward, the GOP held 21 seats while the Democrats had 11.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, which reads in part, “The text and structure of the Constitution and our case law indicate there is nothing inherently suspect about a legislature’s decision to replace mid-decade a court-ordered plan with one of its own.” The law-school fantasy here is that the legislature, as the branch closest to the people, is the fairest place for lines to be drawn. In reality, it is the most political, and one might expect legislative boundaries drawn by people who have Washington ambitions of their own might be drawn politically.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent, suggested that they shouldn’t. “By taking an action for the sole purpose of advantaging Republicans and disadvantaging Democrats, the state of Texas violated its constitutional obligation to govern impartially.” Usually, JPS is the most sensible person on the court, but in his dissent, he betrayed an inability to accept that politics might have some place in politics. The state of Texas is under no obligation to govern impartially; it is to govern in the interests of the majority limited only by the constitutional rights of the minority.

And that is where the 23rd district was ruled out of line. A new district will have to be crafted, and there will be some changes to nearby districts as a result. However, the states now can change how and when to draw congressional boundaries as they like -- that’s federalism. One just wonders how the GOP will like it when California does to the Republicans what they have done to the Democrats in Texas.

The Kensington Review remains adamantly dedicated to the multi-member constituency and the single-transferable ballot, which would avoid all this nonsense.

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.


Home

Google
WWW Kensington Review







Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More