|
High court orders review of texas redistricting Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/election2004/9954169.htmhttp://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/election2004/9954169.htm
Posted on Mon, Oct. 18, 2004
High court orders review of Texas redistricting
BY JOHN MORITZ AND MARIA RECIO
Knight Ridder Newspapers
FORT WORTH, Texas - (KRT) - The U.S. Supreme Court Monday kicked Texas' 2003 redistricting plan - which fractured the bipartisan spirit of the Texas Legislature and endangered the careers of at least five congressional Democrats - back to a three-judge panel for further review.
The high court's action will not affect the 2004 elections, but Texas Democrats immediately hailed the ruling as a vindication of their belief that the Republicans who control the Legislature had no business undertaking a redistricting effort more than once in a decade.
Republicans, meanwhile, called the court's move "routine" and predicted that the new congressional lines will remain intact through 2011.
"Indeed, if the court believed that Texas redistricting were improper, it could easily have set the case for briefing and argument, which it did not do," said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican who defends the state against lawsuits.
Longtime U.S. Rep. Charlie Stenholm - an Abilene Democrat fighting for survival against freshman Republican Rep. Randy Neugebauer of Lubbock - said the court's ruling just two weeks before the election won't have much effect on his campaign.
"Redistricting was wildly unpopular in West Texas, as seen during the local hearings, so I am pleased with this decision," said Stenholm, who is seeking his 14th term in Washington. "However, I am concentrating on my congressional campaign and winning on November 2."
The justices ordered the same three-judge panel that upheld the 2003 plan to reconsider the issue in light of the high court's ruling on a Pennsylvania redistricting case this spring. In that case, the justices by a 5-4 vote upheld a 2001 redistricting plan that Republican state lawmakers said was enacted to maximize their party's advantage.
But the justices did not give a clear guideline to other states on how far a party could go to maximize its advantage in redistricting.
The Texas case had more twists. In 2001, when Democrats controlled the Texas House and Republicans held the Senate, lawmakers were unable to redraw the congressional lines to reflect population shifts shown in the 2000 Census. So a three-judge panel drew the new lines, and Democrats emerged from the 2002 elections with a 17-15 advantage in the Texas congressional delegation in Washington.
However, Republicans secured solid majorities in both houses of the Texas Legislature. That prompted U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, to convince the state Legislature to undertake an unprecedented mid-decade congressional redistricting effort.
Historically, redistricting has taken place every 10 years to reflect a new census count.
After three special legislative sessions and two out-of-state flights by Democrats attempting to derail the effort, the new map designed to give Texas Republicans as many as 22 seats in Congress was enacted. That prompted veteran Democratic Rep. Ralph Hall of Rockwall to change parties and another Democrat, Jim Turner of Crockett, to end his congressional career.
That left Democrats Stenholm, Martin Frost, Max Sandlin, Chet Edwards and Nick Lampson seeking re-election in districts reconfigured to favor GOP candidates. Another Democrat, Chris Bell of Houston, was defeated in the Democratic primary.
Lawyer Richard Gladden, who represented Democratic plaintiffs in the 2003 redistricting trial, predicted that the courts will ultimately rule that mid-decade redistricting is unconstitutional.
"I am 110 percent certain that this map will be thrown out and we'll be having special elections under the old map by July," Gladden said.
DeLay said he remains confident that the new map will survive all court challenges.
"This is a highly technical court decision that suggests no problem with the existing map and it clearly won't change the current election," DeLay said.
Frost, a 26-year House veteran and a prime target of GOP mapmakers, has been running a bare-knuckle campaign against Republican Rep. Pete Sessions for a redrawn district in Dallas. He offered a subdued reaction to the court's move.
"First of all, the Supreme Court ruling will have no effect on the current election under way, and it is important for voters to look at the issues and the candidates, and cast informed ballots," said Frost, who moved from Arlington to Dallas after the new lines were approved.
Nathaniel Persily, professor of law and political science at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, said the Supreme Court passed the buck by telling the three-judge panel to set the bar for how far a party can go to give itself an edge in redistricting.
"By remanding the case in light of the Pennsylvania case, the court is asking the lower court to come up with a standard for partisan gerrymandering," said Persily, a redistricting expert.
Persily predicted that the process will take another year and a half.
"I think the district court is going to reaffirm the decision on different grounds and the case will go back to the Supreme Court," Persily said, adding that the issue might still be alive during the 2006 election cycle.
---
(John Moritz reported from Austin, Texas, Maria Recio from Washington.)
---
© 2004, Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
Visit the Star-Telegram on the World Wide Web at http://www.star-telegram.com.
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
|
|
