Talk:2003 Texas redistricting

Daschle vs. DeLay

The flight of the Texas Democrats during the 2003 redistricting efforts is an important topic, especially considering the hand played by Rep. Tom Daschle. I think, however, that it is worthy of one comprehensive article. -Acjelen 02:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The above reference to Tom Daschle is incorrect and should be Tom DeLay. Daschle was the Democrat Senator from South Dakota. DeLay is a Republican U.S. Representative from Texas who led the redistricting of Texas.

Agreed, this article is in serious need of some work. Some actual detail of the redistricting, rather than just discussing what length were gone to to pass it/prevent it passing would be a big improvement. --RaiderAspect 03:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Rio Grande

Im changing the part that says "Rio Grande River" to Rio Grande. "Rio" means river, you dont have to put it twice :)

Article lacks "post-flight" info

I did a quick stab at cleaning up the article. It's completely lacking, however, in explaining what happened after the Democratic exodus and the resulting redistricting. That's the heart of the story, and it's completely missing from the piece. David Hoag 16:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally. Wasn't there something about Delay using the Federal Marshals to try and round up the Democratic lawmakers? Wasn't this really controversial? I may be mistaken here, but I seem to remember something along those lines.

Gerrymandering precedents

Note: I removed the following addition to the article. It presents POV and objectivity problems. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a legal blog. Wikipedia isn't a debate or moot court. Contributions should not argue or advocate one side over the other. If precedents are to be cited, then they should be presented for both sides of the issue and they should be the precedents the two parties in the case are relying upon in their arguments; otherwise, it is original research and violative of Wiki policy. The material now follows:

Redistricting more than twice every census is not unprecedented. Indiana redistricted four times after the 1880 census. Gerrymandering in itself has never been ruled unconstitutional and is a tool widely used by both parties. The courts have been content to leave gerrymandering as a state political issue as long as it is not practiced in a manner that is designed to deny minorities representation.

Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 89 (1966). The Supreme Court noted that the drawing of district boundaries “in a way that minimizes the number of contests between present incumbents does not in and of itself establish invidiousness.”

Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 533 (1969). The Supreme Court ruled that, when a state legislature is attempting to draw districts of equal population, “the rule is one of ‘practicability’ rather than political ‘practicality.’” “Problems created by partisan politics cannot justify an apportionment which does not otherwise pass constitutional muster.”

Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 754 (1973). The Supreme Court upheld the state legislature’s consideration of “political fairness” between major political parties when drawing legislative districts. (In this case, the plan took into account the party voting results in the preceding three statewide elections and, on that basis, created a proportionate number of Republican and Democratic legislative seats.)

White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 791, 797 (1973). The Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier holding in Burns that district boundaries that have been drawn “in a way that minimizes the number of contests between present incumbents does not in and of itself establish invidiousness.”

City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Although this was a racial multimember district case, the Supreme Court put forth the discriminatory purpose test for violations of the Equal Protection Clause—later used for partisan gerrymandering purposes.

Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986). The Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering was a justiciable issue, but ruled that a violation of the Equal Protection Clause by the Indiana legislature had not been proven.

Badham v. Eu, 488 U.S. 1024 (1989), summarily aff’g 694 F. Supp. 664 (N.D. Cal. 1988). The Supreme Court upheld (without a written opinion) a lower court decision dismissing a partisan gerrymandering challenge to the redistricting of the California congressional delegation.

End of removed material. David Hoag 06:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

recent edits

1. Texas voters had been majority republican going back well into the 90's. By 2002 the democrats' maintenance of their favorable districting was getting amazing. This is a fact and to hide it denies readers a large part of the understanding of the current conflict. I realize people badly want to use anything they can to help smear Delay but he's quite adept at doing that on his own. This is a long conflict where both sides have acted pretty silly but at least the republicans can claim the numbers are on their side. I added a solid source on that.

2. Please explain where the New Yorker article is being paraphrased with this statement: The New Yorker noted that court documents have revealed DeLay designed this scheme in hopes of, by gaining a Republican majority in the 2000 elections, the new leadership would be in a position to redraw the district lines after the 2000 Census, creating districts that were Republican-friendly and making it easier for them to obtain and maintain a majority in the United States Congress. I'd suggest a direct quote of the passage. Thanks.

3. As for the email supposedly from Fortson to Delay, the New Yorker says: From the beginning, it was evident that the agenda of the Republican mapmakers in Texas was more political than racial. Shortly after the redistricting plan passed, Joby Fortson, an aide to Representative Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, sent a candid e-mail to a group of colleagues that makes this point more clearly than any public statement issued by the participants. The memo, which was disclosed in the course of subsequent litigation, offers a “quick rundown” on each of the seats in the delegation. Fortson begins his description of the district where Martin Frost, the senior Democrat in the state, would have to run with the words “Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. . . . His district disappeared.” As for another Democratic incumbent, Nick Lampson, Fortson says, he and a G.O.P. incumbent “are drawn together in a Republican district.” (Lampson lost, too.) “This is the most aggressive map I have ever seen,” Fortson concludes. “This has a real national impact that should assure that Republicans keep the House no matter the national mood.” (Fortson, who now works for Apple Computer, declined to comment.) DeLay is never mentioned at all. Is there some other mention I missed? 69.226.148.23 06:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Depositions in litigation clearly established DeLay was entirely in the loop on the emails. Texas tornado 23:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• So add that new source to the article "Juan". It is still false to say the New Yorker article makes that claim. As shown above it clearly does not. You also sidestepped the other two points raised above in your blanket revert. 69.108.50.39 10:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Several different people are editing this article, so I think it's a bit presumptions for an anonyous user to accuse other people of being sockpuppets when that person him/herself is editing anonymously. That notwithstanding, both sides are engaging in a POV edit war here. It's obvious the controversial emails were sent to Republicans, so it's silly to quibble over that. They certainly weren't sent to Democrats. The Toobin article from The New Yorker states facts 69.108.50.39 is removing; these are also substantiated in the Supreme Court transcripts, which I added in a link, and also in the Medill links. In his/her defense, 69.108.50.39 made valid claims about the Republican edge in Congressional elections which should be returned to the article, although it's debatable about whether a "sizeable majority" was involved. The actual ratio was 23-19, which is more specific than the vague and POV "sizeable margin." The article still has nothing about the Supreme Court actions this year, so I added a bit on that; the case alone will warrant an article when decided. And, yes, I'm signing this anonymously, because the last time I weighed in on this issue, my pages were heavily vandalized.209.179.168.36 01:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Great so you rewrite my addition to only assert the specific numerical fact about the republican majority that is contained in the source, calling it "arguable". Meanwhile have no problems making wildly pov-pushing claims about some silly conspiracy that are not remotely present in the sources they are attributed to. You claim you have other sources? Quote them. I'm getting weary of rereading the same sources from you to look for claims which aren't in there. Are you actually reading them? If so you'll note they don't actually make the most patisan arguments themselves but attribute them to some source. For example Toobin quotes Frost when he includes some of the claims against DeLay. Are Martin Frost's claims what you are trying to include here? (I really can't even tell, they seem so far removed from anything in the cited articles) If so then write "according to Democrat Martin Frost, DeLay is a scheming weenie" if that's what the quote is. Making a statement like "The New yorker noted that DeLay was a scheming weenie" is worse than shoddy Journalism it is a falsehood. 69.108.50.39 05:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC) p.s. it's so obvious that "Texas Terror" equals "JuanOso", just by your misuse of the minor edit designation alone.

• You have now reverted this article three times. That is in violation of Wikipedia three reversion rule. You cannot revert this article again. You need to create an account and then request a dispute resolution. Also, please stop attacking individual users. It's a violation of Wikipedia Civility rules. 207.69.136.197 05:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• The Three-revert rule (or 3RR) is an official policy which applies to all Wikipedians. The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period. Kind of new to this aren't you? I went ahead and undid that reversion for you, since you apparently reverted me based on a misunderstanding of the rules. Is that why you keep changing acounts? I really don't care about that. Now if we can address my questions above and stop wikilawyering, we can resolve this disagreement. All I'm asking for is quotes where sources made specific claims that you argue they did. 69.108.50.39 06:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Your edits are biased and POV. It has been well documented that Tom DeLay played a key role in the redistricting. You keep removing the referenced material to DeLay's role. To make it more irrefutable, I directly quoted the various sources referenced. The Texas Monthly piece is an article, not an editorial. You can't make a goose into a duck by repeatedly calling it a duck. It is a well documented fact that this was DeLay's baby, and as much as you might try to deny it, you can't pretend the sun rises in the west.4.233.115.245 21:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Wipe that foam from your mouth. I was the one who added the New Yorker quote about DeLay leading the redistricting effort. Of course he led it. That is not the dispute regarding that source. The dispute is: THE NEW YORKER DOES NOY SAY DELAY'S GOAL WAS A MAJORITY IN THE US CONGRESS. The US congress is not even mentioned in the article. The Republican argument in the SCOTUS case is they were correcting an unrepresentative district map. It is a state matter and the only federal concern relates to minority representation. If you don't want to call regular opinion articles by Paul Burka (the editor of Texas Monthly) "editorials", fine. Call it criticism. You are the biased pov-pusher, however, if you try to call it "fact". 69anon 23:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's obvious you're too emotionally involved in this issue to present any kind of neutrality. You're removing direct quotes from articles you don't like. And for Lord's sake, if you're going to edit, would you at least stop making simple punctuation errors. You did not add the New Yorker quotes, BTW. A clear reading of this article's history establishes that. So much for your grasp of "accuracy." 4.233.115.245 00:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• You ask to "honestly represent the content of cited sources" yet you remove direct quotations from the sources you don't like. How is that honest? 4.233.115.245 00:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I added the quote about DeLay leading right here: [1] "DeLay had led his Republican colleagues" in the redistricting effort. You want unarguable neutrality? Just quote the source. Say who said it, then quote what they said. Don't paraphrase, don't describe it as them "noting" it, which implies it is a fact, don't refer to it in any words but the source's. Fair enough? 69anon 00:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  If I removed any direct quote it was a mistake and I am fully willing to put it back. I only intended to remove the polemic paraphrasing, e.g. "The New Yorker Noted his scheme ... to achiece a majority in the US Congress" or whatever. That ain't in the source. 69anon 00:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• As another voice in this fray, having slogged through all the changes and counter changes, it seems this is the only sentence in real contention: For example, the March 6, 2006, issue of The New Yorker magazine noted that DeLay and other key Republicans designed this redistricting 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.[2] I'm going to print out the article and read it closely and post a new version of this section. As a side note, I see no reason to remove the references to the emails. I think it's more accurate to say it was in the email, as opposed to "according to Joby Fortson." Moving the Texas Monthly business also seems pointless, as it's part of the flow from the previous material. I would ask that 4.233.115.245 and 69anon stop making any more edits until I can do this; it will take me several hours.207.69.139.157 00:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. I actually thought we were converging on a agreeable wording till the vandalism accusations started. 69anon 00:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see new section below.207.69.137.12 03:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The smoking email

From: Joby Fortson [ mailto:jobydc@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 12:55 PM To: Joby.Fortson@mail.house.gov;jeinertson@yahoo.com; scb123@hotmail.com; greg.Facchiano@mail.house.gov; Turner, Robert (Allen);andy.Halataei@mail.house.gov;Andy.Napoli@mail.house.gov; Angelo.Terrana@mail.house.gov;bwestaustin1@yahoo.com; cmday@guradaylaw.com;tom.delay@mail.house.gov;drucifer666@hotmail.com;jboling@nssga.org; Thomas, Ryan (Appropriations); boulangerT@gtlaw.com; Erik.Einertson@mail.house.gov;Greg.Orlando@mail.house.gov; dhorowitz@digmedia.org; baker_20850@yahoo.com; Jeff.Janas@mail.house.gov; MillerAG@state.gov; Pat.Cavanagh@mail.house.gov;Ryan.Donovan@mail.house.gov; Justin.Sprinzen@mail.house.gov Subject: R's will pick up 6-7 seats now in Texas The maps are now official. I have studied them and this is the most agressive map I have ever seen. This has a real national impact that should assure that Republicans keep the House no matter the national mood. http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/research/redist/pdf/map_plan01374c.pdf A quick rundown 1 - Sandlin - it gets more republican by throwing Tyler into the district. The heart of Turner's district goes to this distrioct. A solid state rep or senator could bat Sandlin/Turner in a tight race. The district is over 60% GOP but Sandlin has roots. (prediction lean staying Dem) 2- Turner - the distrcit is moved to the Houston area in an open Republican seat in northeat Harris County. It is new territory made of Brady, Lampson and a little Turner land.= but over 60% Republican (switches to Republican) 3 - Johnson - this Plano based diestrict stays the same (remains R) 4 - Hall - Hall will win this distrcit again IF he runs. However, having the area around Texarkana instead of Tyler ight discourage him. If he retires (as inidcations are he will) this will flip. (switches to R) 5- Hensarling - the district is shrunk and becomes more urban picking up East Dallas and becomes more republican (stays R) 6 - Barton - my boss actually was drawn into a district with both Frost's and Turner's homes however, if they would like to commit political suicide, be my guest. The district has gone from 57% R to 63% adding more Republican territory in Tarrant County. (remains R) 7 - Culberson - the Houston Memorial "old money" dsitrict remains the same (remains R) 8 - Brady - Brady keeps staunch Republican Montgomery County as his base north of Houston and goes north tyo chop off the other half of Turner's rural district that the 1st gobbled up. Montgomery County keeps this VERY republican (remains R) 9 - Lampson - This is a new majority minority african American district drawn for Rep Wilson around Houston Hobby Airport. Lampson is not in it and Bell is effectively drawn out in favor of Wilson (Remains D) 10 - Doggett - ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - The district goes from North central Austin (NOT liberal Hyde Park but more north conservative Plugerville area) and stretches to Katy Texas outside of Houston. Robert called this the 290 district. It is very Republican and will be where my friend Brian Walters will be likely running. Littelfield already is a consultant. (sweitches to R) 11 - Edwards - This is the "new" Midland seat drawn for Speaker Craddick protege Connaway who lost a close one of Neugebauer in the Combest open seat. This is very Republican. (Switches to R) 12 - Granger - Granger's district continues to be a dafe Ft. Worth R seat (remains R) 13 - Thornberry - Thornberry remains pretty muich the smae but the map is very wacky at points to appease Speaker Craddick and State Senator Duncan. (remains R) 14 - Paul - Ron Paul and Nick Lampson are drawn together in a republican district. This could be trickier than thought given Paul's unusual behavior. It IS republican though centered around Lake Jackson south of Houston, but Brandon can attest that Galveston is a lean D area. Lake Jackson and points south though are HEAVY R. Tus, the district is 60% R. (remains R) 15 - Hinojosa - I do not know if if Hinojosa will take this one or another of the "stripe" districts. One of these is new and part of the voting rights protection element. They run from Austin area to the border side by side. (remains D) 16 - Reyes - this El Paso seat remains relatively unchanged (remains D) 17 - Stenholm - Really its the one Chet Edwards will run in and . . . bye Chet. Chet loses his Killeen-Ft. Hood Base in exchange for conservative Johnson County. They will not like the fact he kills babies, prevents kids from praying and wants to take their guns. State Rep Arlene Wohlgemuth come on down, you are the next Congressman from Texas. To be fair, while Edwards will likely lose, at least he has a fighting chance as Waco is the population center (but hasn't he been LOSING Waco lately - yep!) (switches to R) 18 - Jackson-Lee - as much as we despise her, she cannot be drawn out. She still has the 5th ward and downtown Houston. The Queen lives!!!! (remains D) 19 - Neugebauer - thsi is easily the wackiest district and evidently was the last one drawn. It places Stenholm and Neugebauer in the same seat but most of it is Neugebauer's Lubbock based territory. Stenholm has a chnace because it is very Ag oriented. Abilene just simply replaces Midland as the other population center. Once you see the map, you will shake your head at this one. The overwhelming R nature of it gives the freshman the edge, but Tim Holden in Pennsylvania showed that is not necessarily all it takes. (remains R in a close member-member battle) 20 - Gonzalez - The Alamo still will keep its rep in a similar district. Tony Zafirini's boss is safe (Remains D) 21 - Lamar Smith - this district still has Alamo Heights (rich San Antonio), Westlake (rich west Austin) and San Marcos - (remains R) 22 - Tom DeLay - DeLay, the supposed architect of this map according to Dems, still has his strong R base in Sugarland but gives away enough R's to give Paul and even greater edge in the 14th. (remains R) 23 - Bonilla - half of Webb County (laredo) goes to Hispanic districts and he gets more of Bexar Copunty (north San Antonio) in return to shore up this slowly more Dem growing seat. (remains R) 24 - Frost - ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Hello Congressman Marchant (a state Senator). His distrcit disappeared as Burgess takes inner city Ft. Worth, Eddie Bernice Johnson takes his part of inner city Dallas, Sessions takes his hispanic voters in central Dallas and Barton takes his home in north Arlington. It simply disappears in a Coppell centered district in the VERY republican mid-cities area between Dallas and Ft. Worth. This is the D's best legal challenge as inner city Ft. Worth will now be outnumbered in a Rpublican suburban district (see CD 26). However, the creation of a new african american seat in Houston so that new map should pass the challenge. (switches to R) 25 - Bell - this seat is removed from the Houston area (in its place is the new african american district) and this is one of the new "stripe" districts running from Austin to the border. It takes hispanic east Austin and runs to the border. (remains D) 26 - Burgess - the old Armey seat takes on 150,000 inner city Ft. Worth residents but is paired with 450,000 fervent republicans in Denton County. Lewisville, Denton and other VERY republican areas north make it, over 60% R despite the presence of inner city Ft. Worth. (remains R) 27 - Ortiz - This district still has the Texas coastline from Corpus Christi to Brownsville in the beginning of the strpie districts. (remains D) 28 - Ciro Rodriguez likely will still run in the final "stripe" district that runs from Chinagrove (the little town outside of San Antone from Doobie Brothers fame) all the way to the border. (remains D) 29 - Gene Green - this is still a hispanic seat that gets even more hispanic in Houston. I expect Gene Green to keep it but watch for the primary challenge (remains D) 30 - Eddie Bernice Johnson - she takes Frost's african American population in Dallas and lets her republican precincts (like las colinas) go. Her district finally for the first time make perfect sense geographically. (remains D) 31 - Sessions - still has the Park Cities (rich Dallas) and north Dallas. However, he pciks up some hispanic voters from the old Frost district. This is still a VERY republcian seat as people from the Park Cities vote in great numbers. remember this is the infamous 75225 zip code which raise alomst 20% of Bush's presidential money and voted in the largets precinct 97% Bush-3% Dukakis. This district does not just have people who vote republican but people who ARE republican. (remains R) 32- Carrter - the final district is another gem. Edwards loses the republicans that suppiort him and they now are with John Carter in a Williamson County centered district. This is made for Carter and is still very safe republcian territory. (remains R)

Well now that is odd, when I search for that exact email I get pages like [2] and [3] which have recipients:

To: Joby.Fortson@mail.house.gov;jeinertson@yahoo.com; scb123@hotmail.com; greg.Facchiano@mail.house.gov; Turner, Robert (Allen); andy.Halataei@mail.house.gov;Andy.Napoli@mail.house.gov;

Angelo.Terrana@mail.house.gov;bwestaustin1@yahoo.com;

cmday@guradaylaw.com; drucifer666@hotmail.com;jboling@nssga.org; Thomas, Ryan (Appropriations); boulangerT@gtlaw.com; Erik.Einertson@mail.house.gov;Greg.Orlando@mail.house.gov;

dhorowitz@digmedia.org; baker_20850@yahoo.com; Jeff.Janas@mail.house.gov; MillerAG@state.gov; Pat.Cavanagh@mail.house.gov;Ryan.Donovan@mail.house.gov;

Justin.Sprinzen@mail.house.gov

Notice a certain particular one missing? This search: [4] comes up empty. Just where did that copy come from? 69.108.50.39 06:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus edit

I went through the New Yorker article very carefully. The only remaining dispute is over the following sentence: For example, the March 6, 2006, issue of The New Yorker magazine noted that DeLay and other key Republicans designed this redistricting 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. While this may actually have occured and could be sourced elsewhere, this is an overbroad summation of the New Yorker article. Thus to claim the magazine article states this is somewhat inaccurate and not entirely straightforward. The problem lies in the last part of the sentence, and making it easier for them to obtain and maintain a majority in the United States Congress.

The closest relevant material in this area was the John Cornyn quote, which is as follows: "Everybody who knows Tom knows that he's a fighter and a competitor, and he saw an opportunity to help the Republicans stay in power in Washington." That is as specific as the article gets on this subject -- it's about "help" not about "obtain and maintain" and is thus less emphatic.

Hopefully all parties will sign off on this. If not, please note your objections here rather than this constant back and forth of revising each other. There's no reason it can't be discussed here like adults. I put an "inuse" tag on the top of the article which will hopefully keep any third parties or previous contributors from monkeying with this without having a look-see here first.

All parties must realize, however, that Wikipedia isn't cast in concrete and that this article may be changed at some time in the future. Hopefully the disputed section will not be revised but, if changes are made, they will be expanded and meticulously quote relevant material.

Now back to fixing my wife's washing machine.207.69.137.12 03:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

article lacks background about the Texas 1990s redistricting

At least as a link. It should at least be mentioned that the Texas boundaries as drawn immedately after the 1990s census were widely regarded as the most successful democratic gerrymander of the 1990 cycle largely drawn by now former democratic congressman Frost. (Fairvote, Sabisto's Crystal Ball, Cook Report.) Jon 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The 1990s redistricting should be in a different article and linked in this one. This article is about the 2003 redistricting, hence the title.207.69.137.35 16:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there should also be a sentence here since the Supreme Court in the 2006 decision cited that as well. (Yes, we don't want to put as long a section about the 1990s redistricting here as the Supreme Court did.) Jon 13:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

current tag added to 2006 Supreme Court Session

It just came out this morning and according to news articles and the judges collectively wrote 120 pages worth of opinions so this will need a current tag for a few days. Jon 15:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No such thing as "district court of appeals"

The article stated, "the district court of appeals."

There's no such critter. There's the United States District Court and the United States Courts of Appeals. The latter is the appeals court from the former. Appeals from the latter go to the U.S. Supreme Court. So I fixed the article. The redistricting is being supervised by a panel of judges drawn from the U.S. District Court under an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals, hence the "federal panel" referenced in the cited source.

As well, the article also stated incorrectly "oral arguments will begin on August 3." Oral arguments are a one-day event. Depending on the court and the matter, they usually run one to two hours.207.69.137.41 07:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it appears that an entire clause from my thinking didn't make it onto the page. Jon 14:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Typical Precedence for follow up

This may be too much like a crystal ball for the article itself, but is within bounds for talk pages. Anyway, if normal precedence is followed:

• Texas already held primary will be vacated in the districts substantly changed by the remap. (At least South and West Texas)
• This federal panel will itself draw the new lines and be binding at least thru the November elections. As a federal panel this plan is exempt from section 5 preclearence of the Voting Rights Act. (Indeed the time it takes DOJ to normally preclear is the major reason why the courts are going to draw it.)
• The districts outside of this zone will probably survive mostly intact, athough perhaps with minor changes.
• It at all possible the panel will move quickly after Oral Arguments to rule soon enough for Texas to both hold new primaries and still have the general election on scheldule. (Or alternatively an open primary will be held in November and runoffs in December)
• If the state legislature is unsatisified with the new court drawn lines they are free to replace them for 2008 & 2010 provided the new lines don't violate the VRA

Jon 14:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

More info needed

... such as: which districts (in addition to 23) were effected? Which ones were significantly redrawn? -- Sholom 13:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The affected districts were 15, 21, 23, 25, and 28. But the changes, while significant in some cases (such as the long, thin CD 25 moving out of the McAllen area into central Texas only, and losing its Hispanic predominance in the process), did not pose a concern to any sitting Congressman EXCEPT Henry Bonilla in 23. MogiDasCruzes (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearing up factual errors and providing more background

There are some factual errors in the 2003 Texas Redistricting article as it now reads. In some cases there is a need for expanded information to accurately portray the topic. I have taken one section, the section entitled "2000-2001 evolution and DeLay’s role", and added some comments within the >> << symbols in italics. First off, I think there ought to be two sections here, one on the political evolution prior to 2003, and another section on the 2003 redistricting events. I am working on such a revision. I will also post other sections later. Here is the one section with my comments:

Redistricting in Texas was 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 legislative majority. By 2000, Republican George W. Bush was governor, with Republican Rick Perry as his lieutenant governor.

>> Why declare redistricting was “traditionally done once every ten years” when, in fact, there was no such tradition in Texas? The Texas legislature had redrawn Congressional districts (21 and 23) in 1983 to shore up the Democratic strength in 23 (without a court order), and had opened up redistricting in the 90's several times for state legislative districts. For example, when state house districts were voluntarily changed in the 1997 session and earlier in the decade when an entire senate plan was substituted for a court plan<<

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 maintained a 17 to 15 Democratic majority. [1] Under the Texas Constitution, the Legislative Redistricting Board (LRB) convenes only when the state legislature is unable to approve a redistricting plan in the first legislative session following the National Census. In June, 2001, the redistricting task passed to the LRB after the state legislature failed to pass a redistricting plan.[2]

>> The court’s map of 2001 did not “maintain a 17 to 15 Democratic majority”. It resulted in a a 17 to 15 Democratic majority where it had previously been 17 to 13. (Texas received two new seats as a result of the 2000 apportionment. Also...

The LRB does not have any jurisdiction over Congressional districts whatsoever, only the state house and state senate. Thus all of the language about the LRB and that the “Republican minority recommended this solution” (of deferring to the courts), is inaccurate.<<

In September, 2001, Texas Representative Tom DeLay organized Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), a political action committee designed to gather campaign funds for Republican candidates throughout Texas. TRMPAC was modeled closely after DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), a federal-level organization created to raise funds for Republicans during the 2000 national elections.[3] Simultaneously, as has been well documented in the media, DeLay played a key role in the ongoing Texas redistricting effort.

In 2002, a Republican majority was elected to 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.

>> Republicans formally brought up redistricting late in the 2003 regular session, and that’s when Democrats from the state House fled to Ardmore, OK, only returning when it was too late to pass any redistricting bill. THEN, after the session ended, Perry called a special session.<<

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, fled 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. The absent Democratic representatives became collectively known as the "Killer D's". Despite this, redistricting plans went through and the Republican majority in the Texas congressional delegation grew after the 2004 elections as a result.

>> During the first special session, the traditional “blocker bill” was in place and the senate would need a 2/3 majority to take up redistricting, thus the first special session would end without action. Republicans tried to quickly call a second special session, this time without the “blocker bill”, thus no longer requiring a 2/3 majority to start the process, but the senate Democrats, this time, fled to Albuquerque, NM., thwarting the second special session. When Sen. John Whitwire decided to return to Austin, a third special session was called, again without a “blocker bill” and the bill was then passed. [Note: During normal legislative sessions it is senate tradition to place an otherwise meaningless bill at the beginning of the senate legislation. Senate bills must be considered “in order”, unless by 2/3 majority the senate approves of taking up a bill out of order (the so-called two-thirds rule). In some instances, particularly in special sessions where only a single issue is being considered, the “blocker bill” has not been implemented. This is what happened in the second and third called sessions.] <<

An article in the March 6, 2006, issue of The New Yorker magazine, written by Jeffrey Toobin, quoted Texas's junior Republican Senator John Cornyn as saying, "Everybody who knows Tom knows that he's a fighter and a competitor, and he saw an opportunity to help the Republicans stay in power in Washington." Toobin also noted that DeLay left Washington and returned to Texas to oversee the project while final voting was underway in the state legislature, and that "several times during the long days of negotiating sessions, DeLay personally shuttled proposed maps among House and Senate offices in Austin."[4]

Texas Monthly editor Paul Burka, writing in the magazine's May 2006 issue, labeled the measure as "DeLay’s midcensus congressional redistricting plan" and stated "in order to increase his Republican majority in Congress, he [DeLay] resorted to a midcensus redistricting plan." MogiDasCruzes (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did the Democrats have to leave the state to avoid quorum?

I don't understand why they simply could avoid showing up to the legislature itself. Is there something special about their being not present in the state? If this could be made clearer to non-American readers, that'd be great. Thanks. --Padraic 15:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

When a call for a quorum is made, legislators can be compelled to return to the legislative chambers for a vote. In other words, Texas law enforcement could be enlisted to find the missing members and bring them back to make a quorum. It is possible that the Democrats could have stayed within Texas and tried to remain hidden, either as one group, in small groups, or individually -- but because they would need to hide 51 House members, it was decided it would be safer and more manageable to "hide" together out of state, that is, outside of any Texas law enforcement jurisdiction. Similarly, when state senators later broke quorum, it was just easier to leave the state. MogiDasCruzes (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.texasmonthly.com/csc/486feature.php
  • In 2003 Texas redistricting on 2011-05-25 07:36:22, 404 Not Found
  • In 2003 Texas redistricting on 2011-06-11 06:31:38, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060306fa_fact
  • In 2003 Texas redistricting on 2011-05-25 07:36:22, 404 Not Found
  • In 2003 Texas redistricting on 2011-06-11 06:31:48, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)