Posted on 01/10/2012 7:21:50 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement told U.S. Supreme Court justices Monday that lower federal courts cannot redraw state-approved election district maps unless they can point to concrete "identifying specific statutory or constitutional violations." Instead, Clement said during oral arguments on Perry v. Perez, two federal district judges have nullified the will of the people in Texas. The evident frustration of at least some of the Supreme Court justices suggests they agree with Gov. Rick Perry that state sovereignty must be restored.
Clement represented Perry and the state of Texas in an appeal of lower court decisions throwing out new congressional and state legislative election districts earlier this year.
Like every state, Texas redrew its legislative lines after the 2010 census as the U.S. Constitution requires. Groups unhappy with the new maps then sued, alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act.
In Texas, a three-judge federal district court heard arguments that the new map violates Section 2 of the VRA, which makes it illegal for states to enact voting changes with the purpose or effect of reducing racial minorities' voting strength.
The Lone Star State's congressional delegation has grown from 32 members to 36, thanks to population growth. Texas thus needs a map with 36 congressional districts.
The court held in a 2-1 decision that Texas' new map violates Section 2. So the federal court drew its own maps for the people of Texas -- assigning to them a completely different lineup of districts for the Texas legislature and Texas members of the U.S. House.
Supreme Court precedent makes clear that legislative redistricting is among the most delicate tasks state governments perform, balancing numerous political factors devoid of any legal principles courts can apply.
Yet two judges swept aside those admonitions, drawing districts out of whole cloth based on what they called "fairness" and the "collective public good."
They created what are called "minority coalition opportunity districts" in which a majority of the population is made up of the combined totals for blacks, Hispanics and other racial minorities.
The theory behind this wrongheaded stereotyping is that all minorities vote the same way, so, if they reside in the same district, they will elect a minority member as their preferred candidate.
Complicating matters, Texas is a "covered jurisdiction" under Section 5 of the VRA, meaning the state must get permission from Attorney General Eric Holder or the federal court in the District of Columbia before changing its districting lines. But D.C. has not cleared Texas' new maps.
So the Supreme Court heard arguments Monday on an expedited schedule in Perry v. Perez.
Clement faced off against the plaintiffs' lawyer, Jose Garza, and President Obama's Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinvasan.
Texas' primary was scheduled for March (now April). Given its imminence, Clement argued if the legislature's maps have problems, they must be used as interim maps until being fixed, instead of judges inventing new maps. At a minimum, Texas should use all parts of the maps not at issue in court.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor cut him off, saying that Section 5 means the maps cannot be used for any purpose until they gain final approval.
At one point Monday, the court's proceedings became heated when, after Justice Stephen Breyer repeatedly interrupted Clement, Chief Justice John Roberts intervened to enable Clement to finish his answer.
The issues in this case echo Perry's campaign emphasis on federalism and the 10th Amendment. He argues that Texans should be able to decide how to draw their election districts without interference from Washington so long as they don't violate the Constitution or federal law.
Other VRA cases are headed toward the Supreme Court, so voting rights could become a major issue in the 2012 election. A decision in Perry v. Perez is expected within weeks.
Examiner
legal contributor Ken Klukowski is on faculty at Liberty University and on faculty with the American Civil Rights Union.
Paul Clement is a busy man. He’s also defending DOMA against the Sodomite-in-Chief.
Talk to a mathematician (like me). It can be done.
Not in this case.
Mathematics resolves unique solutions from multiple constraints.
Politics takes a resolved solution and fractures it into competing alternatives.
No way no how can the two disciplines help each other.
The supreme court justices can't even agree one which circuit courts should consider which conflicting sections of a law with an outdated purpose of protecting black voting rights being applied to hispanics, which are white and not historically repressed at the voting booth.
Nobody agrees that gerrymandering should be rejected, they merely agree that gerrymandering should only apply to further each parties conflicting goals. And there's not just two parties. There are d's, r's, black groups, hispanic groups, state govt turf, fed govt turf, etc.
While your proposal may seem ideal for a map case, the problem is that there are no constraints agreed upon to guide the selection of better or worse maps.
What they're doing here is simply waiting for the ultimate authority to carve out an arbitrary, final solution.
It will not make any sense either and the final reason your proposal fails is just that....your result might be fair, equitable and verifiable. That would disadvantage all of the power players, and so it is not a desirable political solution.
One of the reasons I supported Perry was that I saw him as the best person to understand and attempt to roll back the federal governments impingement on state and individual rights.
Admittedly, I may be wrong about that but I like the chances of someone from Texas taking on the feds rather than a Masshole.
The SCOTUS mmay prove to be some counterweight to nobama, i.e. EPA and redistricting and potentially nobamacare.
I seem to remember a snippet from history lessons that the SCOTUS had similar counter effect against FDR’s rampant socialism.
On a larger scale maybe the Constitutional system does work, just that on the smaller scale the liberals are incermentalizing us to death.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Ping to a little bit of Perry campaign info in the article.
Ping to the daily stuff Perry’s been fighting for 10 years.
Walking the walk.
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
States right? or Obama rights?
Go Perry.
I live and vote in Texas.
Texas has made it illegal to write in one’s choice for a political office.
I suggest to the Court that the anti write in law is unconstitutional, because it restricts a voters freedom of choice.
You mean that you don’t have the right to vote for Adolf Hitler, or Mickey Mouse? We get to do that in Wisconsin, and the votes get counted too!! It drives those of us who work the polls a little bit nuts on election night cause we have to copy each extra name onto a report to turn into the County. Grrrrr.
You mean that you don’t have the right to vote for Adolf Hitler, or Mickey Mouse? We get to do that in Wisconsin, and the votes get counted too!! It drives those of us who work the polls a little bit nuts on election night cause we have to copy each extra name onto a report to turn into the County. Grrrrr.
Get the ratio somewhere close to the 1:30,000 in our Constitution and all of the various rat victim groups along with regular Americans will be represented.
San Francisco will send a few freaks to Congress, and my rural area will send a good ‘ol boy. That is the sort of representation our Framers set up.
It is perfectly Constitutional. Review Article II Section 1 para 2.
Here’s a workable, but very-likely “unacceptable to established politicians” approach.
The politics in setting up congressional districts involves gerrymandering 435 districts , so looking for “workable” (see “non-workable” below) and randomized gerrymandering constraints involving roads, conjoined properties and some sort of "symmetry" involving 435 districts (covering the US citizen census count) across each of the 50 states – could be done.
“Non Workable” could be defined as a randomized plan subject to some significant -- and increasing -- percentage (5%, 10%, 20%, etc) of Americans objecting …within 30 days …. to a currently extant randomized plan.
As I said, I could do it … but ... established politicians, and their well connected, "happy", constituents; wouldn’t stand for it because every push of my Go button would come up with a totally unique solution.
But then ...
"Not everything needs to be fixed." -- Randy Pausch
” - - - Grrrrr.”
No. I choose to vote for a Conservative, who will Impeach those who violate the US Constitution, cut Baseline Federal spending and shrink the size of the US Federal Government.
Since “both” Political Parties refuse to do ANY of the above, I want to write in a Candidate who is not on their rigged ballots.
I vote to get my Country back on track, in spite of “both” political parties.
I want the right to do so restored.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
