March 2, 2006
ALL THE EMOTION, NONE OF THE LAW, PART II:
High Court Reviews Texas Redistricting: Hearing Focuses on Constitutional Issues (Charles Lane, March 2, 2006, Washington Post)
[A]fter two hours of a special extended oral argument, the justices seemed likely to let stand all or most of DeLay's handiwork.Opponents argued that the unusual mid-decade redistricting violated the Constitution because it was done with no purpose other than to maximize one party's advantage over another. But the justices reacted coolly to that assertion, which, if accepted by the court, would break new ground in election law.
Perhaps the worst sign for the opponents came in the hostile questioning by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose past opinions on election law issues suggest that he might be the swing voter in the case. Kennedy said it would be "very dangerous" for the court to bar mid-decade redistricting that favors one party because then there would be no way to correct a previous legislature that had "overreached" in favor of another party.
Justice Kennedy shows little taste thus far for replacing Justice O'Connor as the great liberal hope. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 2, 2006 7:59 AM
The other thing not mentioned by those opposed is the 2001 Texas redistricting was snarled up to the point that the court simply stepped in and ordered the 1991 redistricting plan done under Democrats Ann Richards and Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock basically be kept in place, with only minor changes (mostly in urban areas) to account for new congressional districts. So it wasn't as though the DeLay plan the Legislature approved in 2003 overturned the work of the '01 Legislature; the new plan reworked what was basically a 12-year-old design and is far more in line with recent state voting patterns.
Posted by: John at March 2, 2006 9:23 AMCongressional redistricting is a farce, and one could easily get apoplectic about it were it not for the fact that it's been that way since the founding of the Republic. The pre-Delay TX boundaries were merely a particularly obscene example.
Posted by: b at March 2, 2006 10:44 AMIs Ronnie Earle involved with the challenge?
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 2, 2006 11:27 AMKennedy didn't mention that it would be a bad idea because the Constitution doesn't authorize the Court to do it, did he?
Posted by: pj at March 2, 2006 5:03 PM