Worried about Sandra - Texas Redistricting

Townhall.com ^ | January 10, 2004 | Robert Novak

[Bayou City]

Worried about Sandra
Robert Novak

January 10, 2004 |

WASHINGTON -- Republican joy over a federal court approving congressional redistricting in Texas was diminished by an opening in the decision that could give U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor a chance to reverse it.

The Texas three-judge panel's warning of "excessive partisanship," Republican lawyers fear, will give O'Connor the opportunity to join with four liberal colleagues for another 5 to 4 decision against conservative interests. O'Connor, a former Republican leader of the Arizona Legislature who was President Ronald Reagan's first nominee for the high court, was the swing justice on recent 5 to 4 rulings supporting gay rights and campaign finance reform.

A Supreme Court reversal could cost the Republicans eight congressional seats in Texas and perhaps another six seats in Pennsylvania, whose redistricting also might be affected by the same Supreme Court decision.

[MeekOneGOP]

Ms O'Connor needs to go--and this is what the dims are afraid might happen. Just another reason they keep blocking the president's nominees to the courts.

Yep ! I agree.

And here's a 'Catch-22' thought: The GOP oughta take the 'RAT filibustering of judges to SCOTUS. That would be interesting, eh ?? ...

[freedomcrusader]

Sandra Day O'Connor is a disgrace. Her judicial 'philosophy' if you can call it that, is to figure out what the majority of Americans think, vote that way, and come up with a bunch of gobbledy gook to support it.

She said that SCOTUS should take into account other countries' jurisprudence when deciding cases, which is outrageous.

She said that affirmative action is Constitutional for another 25 years. Another outrage, something is either always Constitutional or always not, unless the Constitution is amended.

She is pathetic, pathetic, pathetic.

[wylenetheconservative]

She's been horrible on ideological issues, such as legalized sodomy and affirmative action, but she has been fairly good on partisan issues like this one. I think she'll come through on PA and they'll refuse to hear TX. Do the elections go forward with the new map next year in TX even if the SCOTUS hasn't decided yet?

[freedomcrusader]

Unless SCOTUS issues a stay, then yes, the new districts are currently and will be in force.

[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

What exactly could she and the court say if they did strike down the Pennsylvania or Texas maps? PA especially would be a mess because it lost two congressional seats, so it can't just go back to the old map. Given the Constitution says nothing about partisianship, there's no way the court can rule them unconstitutional (although I don't think that will stop them). The point is you need standards for congressional redistricting, and those are taken care of by the states. It is chilling to think the courts would take away that power.

[basil]

Hey--I like that idea! "Twould certainly be interesting!

[WOSG]

The artciel you link has this comment: "Maybe the way to go is to just stay hands off these things," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said early in the argument. This is a common-sense approach that will kill the Democrats' hopes. The Republican redistricting has been no more partisan that the gerrymanders of every census cycle. The USSC would be insane to open that Pandora's box, as it would be impossible to determine 'fairness' in a political sense.

[Torie]

I think SCOTUS is worried about high tech gerrymanders, and there being so few swing seats. And SCOTUS, as it should be in my view, is very agressive about political process issues, because without a political process that makes democracy seem reasonably fair, the whole system is called into question.

But the problem is what is the cure to partisan gerrymanders? The cure seems worse than the disease, because the cure would be for courts to draw everything (and of course judges can be partisan hacks as well, shocking as that may seem), and that is why I think SCOTUS in the Pennsylvania decision, if it does anything at all, will craft something that is very narrow in its scope. I say that because I think per the overall tenor of the oral arguments, the majority of the Court is acutely aware of the downside of opening the Pandora's box.

The Texas map isn't going to get to SCOTUS. SCOTUS will deal with it all, or not deal with it, in the Pennsylvania decision. I suspect that decision will get a LOT of attention.

[Torie]

The case for dumping the Texas plan is weaker than Pennsylvania I agree, with the possible exception of the Bonilla district, which is where the dissenting opinion weighed in, based on grounds other than partisan gerrymandering. But the reach of the Penn decision may reach Texas, although I think the odds are against it, but not overwhelmingly so. Two judges are on that court are rather unpredictible, even if both are rather partisan Pubbies in their naughty little hearts.

[DLfromthedesert]

That's cause if the Democrats do it, it's FOR THE CHILDREN!!

[goldstategop]

I wouldn't be surprised if the SCOTUS bans partisan gerrymandering. I oppose it on principle. The good news is the Rats in California will lose much of their safe seats too. In a democracy, no district should be drawn to give ANY politician, regardless of party, a home run advantage and lifetime tenure.

[kennedy]

Also important is this quote from Breyer:

Breyer asked if the case would be valid if the Democrats were able to show that, over time, the plan was resulting in the majority party's winning a minority of the state's seats in Congress.

"That undermines democracy," Breyer said.

In Texas, the old Democrat gerrymandered districts that the new districts replace did in fact result in the majority party winning a minority of the state's seats in Congress.

[tamudrb79]

I agree that a non-partisan commission might be the way to go, but I think that most of the time you will have a hard time trying to find anyone truly non-partisan to sit on the commission.