For Partisan Gain, Republicans Decide Rules Were Meant to Be Broken (NY Times Barf Alert)

New York Times ^ | 5/27/03 | ADAM COHEN

[lowbridge]

There was a lot not to like about the new Congressional district lines Republicans tried to push through in Texas this month, the ones that made Democratic legislators flee to Oklahoma to prevent a vote. Democratic Austin was sliced into four parts and parceled out to nearby Republican districts. A community on the Mexican border and one 300 miles away were painstakingly joined together and declared to be a single Congressional district. But the real problem was that Republicans were redrawing lines that had just been adopted in 2001, defying the rule that redistricting occurs only once a decade, after the census.

The Texas power grab is part of a trend. Republicans, who now control all three branches of the federal government, are not just pushing through their political agenda. They are increasingly ignoring the rules of government to do it. While the Texas redistricting effort failed, Republicans succeeded in enacting an equally partisan redistricting plan in Colorado. And Republicans in the Senate — notably those involved in the highly charged issue of judicial confirmations — have been just as quick to throw out the rulebook.

These partisan attacks on the rules of government may be more harmful, and more destabilizing, than bad policies, like the $320 billion tax cut. Modern states, the German sociologist Max Weber wrote, derive their legitimacy from "rational authority," a system in which rules apply in equal and predictable ways, and even those who lead are reined in by limits on their power. When the rules of government are stripped away, people can begin to regard their government as illegitimate.

The Texas redistricting effort was part of a national Republican effort to shore up the party's 229-to-205 House majority going into the 2004 elections. The House majority leader, Tom DeLay, who traveled to Austin to supervise the effort personally, was blunt about his motives: "I'm the majority leader, and I want more seats." Texas Republicans seized control of the Legislature last year, and they thought they could add five or more Republican Congressional seats. When the Democrats took off for Oklahoma, the Department of Homeland Security helped hunt down a plane filled with escaping legislators. Sixteen members of Congress from Texas wrote to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking him whether there had been "attempts to divert federal law enforcement resources for private political gain."

[lowbridge]

[abnegation]

Seems to me the NYT broke some "rules of journalism" about publishing fiction that they sold as fact. I'm so sick of these crybabies......Once again, liberals think there are no rules for them, but impose rules on the rest of them. Their relevance amounts to nothing now. RIP.

[grobdriver]

Sixteen members of Congress from Texas wrote to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking him whether there had been "attempts to divert federal law enforcement resources for private political gain."

Unable to defend their run-away actions, the Texas dems go on the offense and the media complys - the story is not that they left (illegally) and why (to prevent legal action, however political), but what was done to find them.

[Tall_Texan]

Gee, I was fully expecting this to be about the "nuclear option" Republicans in the US Senate hope to try to thwart Democrat filibusters.

Why does the Times care about a dead story (outside of Texas)? Without tying it into the broader theme (didn't they mention the tax cut?), the editorial has no weight.

[Billthedrill]

Good heavens - did they really publish this stuff? Redistricting is not some Republican plot, it's a function of government basic enough to be provided for on a federal level within the body of the Constitution. The issue in Texas wasn't that it was some new thing, but that Republicans were getting to do it for the first time in more than a century.

I have little patience with such palpable ignorance passed off as intelligent political comment. Either Cohen doesn't know any better, in which case he's not too well grounded politically, or he does know better, in which case he's a liar. Either way he shouldn't be accorded a column in a major U.S. daily. But then, it is the Times...

[VRWCmember]

But the real problem was that Republicans were redrawing lines that had just been adopted in 2001, defying the rule that redistricting occurs only once a decade, after the census.

The author manages to squeeze two lies into only one sentence. First, there is no rule that requires redistricting occur only once a decade, only that it MUST occur each decade after the sentence. Second, the lines adopted in 2001 were drawn up by a district judge, inconsistent with the Texas Constitutional requirement that district lines be drawn by the legislature. The democrat-led legislature failed its duty in 2001 and as a result the courts drew up gerrymandered district lines that do not reflect the population growth or voting patterns in the state.

[eBelasco]

Whatever assertions are made in a NYTimes article, you can be sure they are all false. No Democrats left the state to protest anything. No redistricting took place. All liberal media lies.

[BnBlFlag]

Once again children. The Dims lead the Pubbies 17 to 15 in the Texas congressional delegation even though the Congressional vote is app. 57% to 43% in favor of the Pubbies.
The Dims gerrymandered after the 90 census and can't stand the idea of a fair reapportionment.

[Dan from Michigan]

The Slimes is not a creidible source.

[ken5050]

FWIW, in the edition of the Times the day BEFORE this piece of crap was published, in the SAME spot, which is the bottom of the editorial page....there was a piece reflecting on the meaning of "American Idol"...the Times is looney-tunes....there are so many things wrong with this peice it doesn't even make sense to try and list them..

[1Old Pro]

I've looked for a similar headline from the Times when the NJ courts allowed Lousenberg into the Senate race. Can't find it.

[You Dirty Rats]

I wish articles from publications like Weekely World News, the National Enquirer, Star, and the New York Times were not posted here. We should stick to reputable publications. I don't need to read "All the fits that's news to print".

I wouldn't wrap Cuyahoga River Carp in that rag.

[CMAC51]

There was a redistricting plan put into effect in 2001. It was necessary for the 2002 congressional elections to occur. Because the Texas legislature was unable to pass a redistricting bill, the courts mandated that a commission draw up the districts with the mandate that all current congressional seats be maintained. In otherwards, current congressman could not be re-disticted into a situation where they had to compete against another current congressman. The governor and legislature approved this plan for use in the 2002 election.

Both the US constitution and the Texas constitution virtually require that a new re-districting plan be approved. Both constitutions establish that the state legislature shall do the redistricting. The plan currently in effect has prior judicial restraint due to the direction to protect existing seats. The legislature constitutionally must approve a plan without judicial prior restraint. Truthfully they could just pass the existing plan and it would become constitutional. However it must be their choice to do so. A congressional vote (and approval) of a plan is necessary if compliance with the constitutions (US and State) has any meaning.

Anyone including the NYT who contends that Texas currently has a constitutional redistricting plan in place is either ignorant, mis-informed or lying. You be the judge.

[TheBattman]

Once again the NYT fabricates a story of lies.

A few of the conflicting points are listed below:

1. My understanding of the redistricting laws in Texas - Whan a new party takes over the majority, it has the right to redraw legislative districts.

2. The Democrats had the opportunity to redraw the districts in 2001 but chose not to (at least that's how I remember reading it).

3. The Democrats violated Texas law in fleeing to OK, thus holding up the state government.

[L.N. Smithee]

I've looked for a similar headline from the Times when the NJ courts allowed Lousenberg into the Senate race. Can't find it.

Bingo. I checked the archives, and it was the opinion of the Skewed York Times that the important thing in the NJ Senate race were not "rules of government" or clear and unambiguous state election law, but what they referred to as "a genuine election."

This is the NYT's editorial as quoted by the brilliant James Taranto's Best of The Web for October 1, 2002:

---

The Republicans are likely to argue that under New Jersey election law, it is too late to put another name on the ballot. But legal wrangling over ballot access cannot be allowed to obscure the central issue, which is one of democracy. The guiding principle should be the voters' basic right to a genuine election. With a month to go before Election Day, there is still time for a spirited campaign.

---

What is most infuriating about the New Jersey Supremes' decision in favor of the Democrats -- which was virtually an echo of the above-cited NYT editorial -- is that it essentially termed an electoral choice as being only between the Democrats and the Republicans. In other words, without a Demo candidate on the ballot, the election wouldn't be "genuine," regardless of the fact there were many other candidates that voters could have chosen over the Republican in the race.

With the revelation of their executives' mismanagement of their writers, and those higher-ups' subsequent staunch refusals to honorably resign, the name The New York Times now is synonymous with situational ethics. They preach them, they practice them.

[the lone wolf]

Let's see who did what for partisan gain.

The DemocRATs illegally put Lautenberg on the NJ ballot after time ran out for changes.

The DemocRATs illegally put Mrs. Carnanhan on the ballot in MO when her husbands plane crashed, after it was too late for changes.

The DemocRATs tried numerous illegal vote count schemes in FL to "elect" Al Gore, Jr.

All done for partisan gain, all breaking the rules for the DemocRATic Party. And all unannounced by the NY Times.

[1Old Pro]

great reply