Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktQuandary. Texas’ primary will surely be postponed until June.
How did we get here?
1] TX Lege published its CD map based on the 2010 census.
2] TX is a state that must pre-clear its map with the Justice Department or alternatively ask a USDC in Washington DC for a declaratory judgment. No state had ever gone to court before, but TX thought it would do “better” in court than with a D DOJ. This infused delay, as a matter of course – DOJ pre-clearance takes but 60 days.
3] The DC Court has not finally ruled, but did make an interim finding that the TX plan violated the VRA. The DC Court will finally rule in March, perhaps.
4] TX had scheduled its primary for Super Tuesday in March, so, in an unusual move, the DC Court permitted a TX federal court panel to draw an interim plan for TX. The San Antonio panel obliged, but without ever making its own preliminary finding that the TX plan violated the VRA.
5] TX appealed the SA map to the Supremes saying it was not based on a finding of a violation. Further, TX said, it could use its own map if no violation had been found. The DC court case was not part of the appeal but it was not far from the Supremes’ minds, either.
6] Read the link to see that the Supremes are confused, too. I think you will sense that the Supremes will probably come up with a compromise result that will be more about judicial administration of the federal court system, IMHO, then about the probable swing of 4 HoR votes by party that are the political stakes. 3 of 4 new HoR seats are R under the TX plan, but D under the San Antonio USDC plan.
7] Remember that this is only about TX’s interim plan at this point – the final plan will be dictated by the USDC in DC, or the appeal of that case. Problem for TX is that the interim makes the CD lines for 2012, and until we have a final ruling, we cannot have 2012 elections or primaries. The Supremes [and all courts] hate tight timelines in complex matters.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Have fun, Texas!
LikeLike
Someone a while back posted an article about job interview tests. Here are some more.
LikeLike
MN redistricting is also in the courts, but that is normal for the process. The Lege passes a new district map, but if the gov't doesn't sign, it goes to a panel of judges. I'm now curious about the timeline.
LikeLike
The new D-drawn Illinois map got challenged in court by the R's, but the initial round went to the D's. Seems the R's based their case on the new map underrepresenting Latinos, but they couldn't find many in the Latino community to agree so the case fell flat.
LikeLike
yello: Regarding those oddball interview questions, some of my answers**Please spell ‘diverticulitis': Do you think it's misspelled on the sheet you're reading from? Who in your company would give you an interview questionnaire without putting it through standard spell-check software?What do you think of garden gnomes?: I have to admit I've never had garden gnomes as workmates, so I can't speak from experience. What's been this company's experience with them?Room, desk and car – which do you clean first?: Who's asking? My mother, my boss, or my husband?Pepsi or Coke?: Pepsi Max or Coke Zero? Britney Spears or polar bears? This is America! We want it all!Just entertain me for five minutes, I’m not going to talk: Allow me to direct your attention to Plumline for the next 4:58, 57, 56…
LikeLike
** not intended to be factual.
LikeLike
Just entertain me for five minutes, I’m not going to talk: Allow me to direct your attention to Plumline for the next 4:58, 57, 56…Bwahahahaha!!!!I personally liked the question about getting the elephant into the refrigerator.
LikeLike
Oh that's easy, Michi. Just have the refrigerator be of the huge restaurant variety and stock it with elephant food.
LikeLike
Mark: No state had ever gone to court before, but TX thought it would do "better" in court than with a D DOJ.Given the DOJ's and Holder's comments on the redistricting map, that doesn't seem like a crazy thing to have thought.Questions for you, Mark: Do you think the map was designed with the intent to discriminate against minorities?Do you think it remains a reasonable restriction on Texas that it must continue, over 40 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, to get it's maps approved by the DOJ or a court?Do you think Obama's DOJ, and particularly Eric Holder, can be trusted to make such a determination on the merits rather than as a political decision to aid his own party?
LikeLike
"Do you think the map was designed with the intent to discriminate against minorities?"Does intent matter? The intent may 'just' be to establish a partisan advantage, but if the effect is discriminatory towards minorities, its in violation of the VRA.
LikeLike
1. No. But it does. EZ to see.2. No.3. don't know. In fact, I would have used this case to come to my own conclusion about that, and I may now look at some of the other pre-clearance rulings in other states. Trouble is I do not know the demographics well in other states.
LikeLike
Mark:1. No. But it does. EZ to see.I'm not at all familiar with the redrawn maps, so I am curious…how does this discriminatory effect manifest itself?BTW, it seems to me that since intent to discriminate is not required, this gives Dems an obvious legal advantage over Republicans. When drawing the maps, party registration can be and is a factor, and so both parties attempt to diminish the voting power of the opposite party. But since protected minorities (particularly blacks) register as Dems in such lopsided proportions, this means that many R attempts to diminish the voting power of Dems will adversely affect blacks even if their race has nothing to do with it, and is therefore illegal, while virtually no D attempt to diminish the voting power of R's would be illegal, since no traditionally Republican constituency is protected.It also points, it seems to me, to the plain unconstitutionality of this restriction. If something that is regularly done to non-minority voters when redistricting occurs cannot legally be done to minority voters, then manifestly non-minorities are not being treated equally under the law.
LikeLike
VRA enforcement in many areas has been out of control and a travesty for a long time. In many instances, it is just another legal tool for the protection and promotion of a Democratic Party interests. (You are right about that, Scott.) I would not have trusted the Holder DOJ, either. I can't imagine how anyone could.
LikeLike
qb:How have courts reconciled the unequal treatment of different citizens that laws such as this not only allow but pretty much require with the equal protection clause?
LikeLike
Scott,You've asked a question that would require a law review article if not a book to discuss. I'm not an expert in the area of VRA by any stretch, but to say that it is a convoluted pile of contradictions would be an understatement.You can consider for example that the Court has in the past held, if memory serves, that both dilution and concentration of minority votes can violate the EPC itself (not even considering VRA yet). (Good luck figuring that out.) Nevertheless, some Justices who endorse that very view think that strict scrutiny should only apply to some racial distinctions under the EPC, and they don't think that race-conscious redistricting, e.g., for the purpose of creating minority-majority districts should be reviewed for EPC violation. I.e., it is okay to discriminate in order not to discriminate. You can guess which justices. As I recall, some of the liberal justices don't even think that white voters have standing to raise racial gerrymandering claims. (Memory is hazy on that point, but I think I'm being accurate there.)It is not a body of law that can be rationalized in any way I can see. It would take a lot more time to develop a more useful and coherent answer, unfortunately.
LikeLike
Scott and QB, as you could tell from my short answer, I think Sec.5 pre-clearance has outlived its usefulness. I would not say that about VRA on the whole, but it is now absurd to treat TX and FL differently than NY and CA.The whole issue of minority voting dilution was dependent on ghetto type clustering, and carving up the ghettos to deprive them of representation. Remnants of this still exist, probably more in northern cities than in TX from what I have seen. I will not be sad to see the Supremes rule that Sec. 5 is an unwarranted intrusion on state administered election law, but I think it is a theoretical stretch. Sec. 2 cases where the AG initiates action against northern states is rare and usually justified, IMO.As to assuming Holder's AG office will be more political than anyone else's, I reserve judgment. Even very political AGs usually did not interfere with professional staff work on this issue.Section 2 – the prohibition on discrimination – is "permanent" while Section 5, pre-clearance, is terminable. Congress extended Section 5 for 25 years in 2006.Section 5 clearly is the Ds friend, except, perhaps, in FL.Finally, when ghettos are gone [3/5 of Austin's blacks do not live segregated and 4/5 of the chicano population does not live segregated] it will be utterly impossible to discriminate on a racial basis by mapmaking. As we are in transition away from ghettos the "issues" get blurred badly. Yet what the lege did in TX in carving an R leaning map deprived the LRG Valley [overwhelmingly chicano] of voting strength. That is why I said it was EZ to see.
LikeLike
Scott:The latest challenge to Section 5 of the VRA was NAMUDNO v. Holder decided in OT09. The 8-1 majority (Thomas, dissenting but concurring in judgment) upheld Congress' 25 year extension of the VRA, but was clearly troubled by the necessity of the extension. It is informative to read both the transcript of orals as well as CJ Roberts' opinion. A quote from the opinion summary: The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable, but the Act now raises serious constitutional concerns. The preclearance requirement represents an intrusion into areas of state and local responsibility that is otherwise unfamiliar to our federal system.Here is the SCOTUSblog page with links to all the relevant information.
LikeLike
Mark:Section 5 only applies to 5 counties in FL, including the one in which I reside. The Fair Districts Amendments, though, had to go through preclearance because they cover state-wide redistricting.I'm trying to find a report on the orals at the 11th for the Fair Districts lawsuit brought by Corrine Brown and Mario Diaz-Balart. Yes, bipartisan opposition.
LikeLike
Mike, Northwest Austin MUD [the case you cited] says every county in TX is covered. A good example of a case where pre-clearance was completely unnecessary [the black voters in the MUD joined the MUD's case], the Court had to blatantly turn another section of the VRA on its head to get to a reasonable result.
LikeLike
Mark:Well, Texas as a whole state is listed in Section 5. Only Collier, Hardy, Hendry, Hillsborough, and Monroe counties are listed for FL.Section 5 covered jurisdictions
LikeLike
Agreed. I was not arguing the stretch of Sec. 5. Just distinguishing from FL. I did not know FL had Sec. 5 counties only. From memory, before I looked at your link, I thought only CA and VA had county coverage. My VA recollection was probably NC, in fact.
LikeLike
Mike…thanks for the links.
LikeLike
Test.
LikeLike