This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 207.69.136.197 (talk) at 05:11, 19 April 2006 (unpermitted reversion -- see discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:11, 19 April 2006 by 207.69.136.197 (talk) (unpermitted reversion -- see discussion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|December 2005|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.
After Republicans won control of the Texas state legislature in 2002, for the first time in 130 years, they set their sights on establishing a majority of House of Representatives seats held by their party. At that time, Democrats had a 17-15 edge in House seats representing the Texas, notwithstanding the fact that the state's voters voted for Republicans in congressional races by a 23-19 margin.. The resulting redistricting effort has become extremely controversial, and the matter is now pending before the Supreme Court of the United States.
2000-2003 evolution
Redistricting in Texas is traditionally done once every ten years, soon after the National Census. A redistricting occurred in 1991, when the Democrats held both the Governor's seat (with Ann Richards) and a majority in the legislature. By 2000, Republican George W. Bush was Governor, with Republican Rick Perry as his Lieutenant Governor.
Around this time, Texas Representative Tom DeLay organized Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) and Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), an organization designed to gather campaign funds for Republican candidates across the state of Texas. The March 6, 2006, issue of The New Yorker magazine noted that court documents have revealed DeLay designed this scheme in hopes of gaining a Republican majority in the 2000 elections, so that the new leadership would be in a position to redraw the district lines after the 2000 Census, thus creating districts that were Republican-friendly and making it easier for them to obtain and maintain a majority in the United States Congress. Lengthy emails from Joby Fortson, a Republican congressional aide and close confidant of DeLay, were made public in 2003 and established the broad scope of the plan. "This has a real national impact that should assure that Republicans keep the House no matter the national mood," as noted in one Fortson email sent to key Texas Republicans.
After the 2000 elections, however, Democrats maintained their majority in the Texas legislature. In 2001, the Democrats and Republicans were unable to agree on a new district map to correspond with the 2000 census. Per state law, under these circumstances, the matter could be submitted to a panel of judges. The Republican minority recommended this solution. Accordingly, the matter was forwarded for this type of review, and the judges drew a new map, which still established a Democratic majority.
In 2002, TRMPAC succeeded in electing a Republican majority in the state legislature. Under the encouragement of Tom DeLay, Governor Rick Perry and the Republican majority tried to make redistricting a major issue during the 2003 legislative session. By the end of the term, however, the issue had not been settled. As a result, Perry called for special summer sessions.
In summer 2003, the state legislature attempted once more to reapportion the state's congressional districts. Democratic party members from the two state houses, lacking the votes to defeat the redistricting plan, left the state for nearby Oklahoma and New Mexico. In doing so, the 53 members made it impossible for a quorum to exist, thus blocking the redistricting efforts.
Criticism of the plan
Democrats criticized the 2003 redistricting effort, citing the lack of precedent for redistricting twice in a decade, considering it had already been done in 2002, and argued that it was being done for purely political gain and was therefore gerrymandering. Statements by some Republicans lent support to this claim, since many publicly stated their expectations of picking up several Republican seats. Some minority groups argued the plan was unconstitutional, as it would dilute their influence and possibly violate the "one-person-one-vote" principle of redistricting. Republicans counterargued, however, that since most voters in the state were Republicans, it was appropriate that the party have a majority in the federal legislative delegation.
The results of the 2004 elections brought Texas Republicans a majority of House seats by a 21-11 margin. The state voted for the Republican presidential candidate by a margin of 61-38, which led the party to claim that the problem of unfair representation in Texas had been remedied.
Supreme Court review
The matter is now pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, which held oral arguments in the case on March 1, 2006, in a special extended session. The court's opinion in the case -- slated on the docket as League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry -- will be issued later this year.
See also
References
- "Drawing the Line -- Will Tom Delay's Redistricting in Texas Cost Him His Seat?" by Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker magazine, March 6, 2006, pp. 32-37.
- "Mess With Texas—the Supreme Court Has Another Look at Partisan Gerrymanders", By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, March 1, 2006.
- "Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal", Washington Post, December 2, 2005, page A01
- "Republicans enlisted Department of Homeland Security in Texas political fight", WSW News, May 17, 2003.
External links
- Northwestern University overview on pending Supreme Court case, with extensive further links
- United States Supreme Court oral argument transcript in pending case
- Current Texas election districts
- United States District Court decision in pending litigation