 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
And I was complimenting Petit Jean area, just earlier today. |
That's nice. Why are you trying to use it as a debating chip?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
I like Texas. Should I act like I don't ? |
"Loyalty to country always, loyalty to government when it deserves it." You don't have to be a damned hated Yankee just because you think Texas government could use some checks and balances.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
Yep, that it is. Over a century of Democratic rule will do that to you though . Especially when those Democrats create the most gerrymandered state in the country. |
Meh. I don't know about most of Texas's Democratic past, for one thing. For another thing, Democrats today were not Democrats 100 years ago. Thirdly, the discussion was sparked by gerrymandering which as you brought up I will attempt to counter, that, in a cheap phrase, two wrongs don't make a right. More complicatedly, Ramo says that the gerrymandering would be illegal anyways due to it's not the right year, and DeLay tried to sic the DHS on the Democrats, and the gerrymandering is far worse than anything Democrats have ever done. I don't live in Texas, and Ramo was the only Texan in that thread that did not support a blatant violation of the law, so I'll have to use his word for right now...perhaps a source with the pre- and post-gerrymandering maps would be in order. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
my brother is going to college in Texas
which means that perhaps at somepoint I will see Texas from some point other than way above or in the Dallas-Fort Worth airport
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
He's not right, but then again relying on the media will make you miss a lot of info .
The 2000 census redistricting PARTIALLY was voted on in 2001. The rest of it was sent up to the courts. The courts decided it, but said it was up to the legislature to decide redistricting. The legislature is trying to redistrict after the court's decision on the districts. |
Come again? The current district division was decided by the courts, period. They didn't send it back to the legislature (that doesn't even make any sense, that'd defeat the entire purpose of a court being involved in the first place).
quote:
LAWSUITS ON HOUSE AND SENATE REDISTRICTING (November 5 - November 28, 2001)
The Travis County District Court considered house and senate redistricting briefly before deciding to defer to the U.S. district court. A number of senate and house redistricting proposals were submitted to the state and federal courts.
On November 5-6, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Judges Ward, Hannah, and Higginbotham) heard oral arguments on the LRB senate district plan (PLAN01188S), which had been precleared by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on October 15.
The U.S. District Court held hearings on house redistricting on November 13-15. The DOJ denied preclearance of the LRB state house district plan on November 16.
On November 28, the federal court upheld the senate district plan adopted by the LRB (PLAN01188S) and put in place a new house district plan (PLAN01369H), which modified the LRB house plan to address DOJ objections.
LAWSUITS ON CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING (September 17 - October 10, 2001)
On July 3, 2001, Governor Rick Perry notified Lieutenant Governor Bill Ratliff and Speaker Pete Laney that he would not call a special session to consider congressional redistricting. On September 17, the Travis County District Court began hearings in the congressional cases of Del Rio v. Perry and Cotera v. Perry. A number of congressional proposals were submitted to state and federal courts. On October 10, District Judge Paul Davis issued an order adopting new congressional districts (PLAN01089C). This order was vacated by the Texas Supreme Court on October 19 after the U.S. district court deadline for the state district court to complete its work had passed. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas took up the congressional case of Balderas et al. v. State of Texas on October 22. On November 14, the U.S. court issued an order adopting congressional districts (PLAN01151C) for the 2002 elections. |
http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/research/redist/actions.htm
A summary on the judicial situation:
quote:
Austin American-Statesman
Perry, GOP do a 180 on redistricting
By Dave McNeely
July 3, 2003
One's attitude on whether the Legislature or courts should draw congressional district maps depends a lot on who's in charge.
In 2003, when Republicans rule in the Legislature, Republican Gov. Rick Perry and Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick say it's a legislative responsibility worth calling a $1.7 million special legislative session. A map drawn by a three-judge federal court in 2001 needs to be undone, they say.
But in 2001, Perry and the Republicans said they'd leave it to the federal court. At that time, the Texas House of Representatives still had a Democratic majority, and Democrat Pete Laney was speaker.
After a House-passed congressional map died in the Republican-controlled Senate, Perry wrote to legislative leaders in July 2001 saying he wouldn't call a special session on the topic.
Though Texans might prefer it, he said, "I believe Texans would be even more disappointed if we expend considerable sums of taxpayer money to call the legislature into a special session that has no promise of yielding a redistricting plan for Congress."
The three-judge federal court later in 2001 drew a map that added two new Republican districts, but didn't punish Democratic incumbents. So Republican U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Sugar Land decided the lines needed to be redrawn.
In May of 2003, House Democrats fled to Oklahoma to break a quorum to kill another redistricting bill during the regular legislative session. But Perry obliged DeLay by calling a special session that began Monday.
Now, with Republicans in charge in both the Texas Senate and the House, Perry apparently thinks Texans believe it's worth the expenditure, because there presumably will be a result.
The last time a three-judge court redrew Texas congressional districts was in 1996. The three judges then - all appointed by Republican presidents - found three of Texas' 30 congressional districts at the time paid too much attention to race.
They gave then-Gov. George W. Bush a chance to call a special session to draw the districts. He refused. So the judges drew new lines for those three districts.
They did so over the objections of then-Speaker Laney and then-Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, the Democrat who presided over the Texas Senate.
The ripple from the three districts affected 10 others. The judges decreed that in those 13 districts, filing would reopen for special elections to be held with the Nov. 5 general election.
Bush later said he thought the court had done as good a job as was possible. But Laney thought they should have waited and let the Legislature do it.
"I still maintain redistricting is a legislative duty," said Laney - almost seven years before he joined 50 other Democrats on the lam, in what may turn out to have been a futile effort to keep the Legislature from redrawing the court's map.
One last note: This time around President Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, who as an adviser four years ago called for an independent redistricting commission, has called at least one GOP Texas senator to ask him to vote for DeLay's map. |
Last edited by Ramo on 30-07-2003 at 09:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
They don't have to send it back to the legislature for the legislature to look at the court's order and change it. After all, this is what California did in 1984, and no one said that was illegal. |
The legislature didn't change it when it came back from the court. The new districting plan was put in place. The 2002 elections used the district division established by the court.
The Republicans were just frustrated that generally Republican districts, established by the courts, crossed party lines and elected some Democrats, so they redistricted ad absurdum as soon as they controlled the legislature, only a few years after the previous plan was implemented. This defies Texas legislative rules. It isn't on the up and up.
I'm not familiar with the situation in California in 1984, but in Texas in 2001, the court's ruling wasn't a recommendation, but an order.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-07-2003 06:51
. Especially when those Democrats create the most gerrymandered state in the country.
.
.
.
|