2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

The current TX congressional districts were decided by a court in the Baldaras v. State Of Texas case.

The maps were drawn under the Constitutionally mandated process (even though the State Legislature failed to do their part..) but when Democrats weren't happy with the end result they challenged it in court and the court had the final say.

How many lawsuits have their been in the CA recall so far? You don't think Gov. Davis is trying to subvert the will of the voters by fighting a recall even though the voters in the state approved the process?

How long did it take to get the mandated redistricting done in the 12th District of NC after the 1990 census? That wasn't finally settled until January of 2001 - just in time to start all over again - because NC Democrats kept trying to gerrymander lines in that district.

Remind me to never visit littleton, CO.

Its a place of great peace and tranquility.

and a gun manufacturer

and fine young men in black trenchcoats who were properly brought up in heterosexual-parent families

I didn't want to go off on that tangent, but if you have ever been to Littleton, or heard Andrews or Tom Tancredo speak, you can almost understand why Dylan and Kleibold did what they did!

The whole big pile of doodoo makes me almost frantic.

it's pretty scary. And it is real. These folks are achieving their goals right under our noses.

Every tenyearly redistrciting is nominally done on the basis of the census - hell, even the in-between redistricting proposed in TX now would be based on the census. Doesnt mean much - even if you have to make districts of each comparable population size you can still draw the boundaries a thousand different ways.

Because of the Democratic majority in the TX State House, the Dems, apparently, had accorded themselves quite a lopsided advantage in the definition of the districts over the years. In the 2000 elections, for example, the Reps got 49% and 13 House seats, while the Dems, with 2% less, got 4 seats more. I didnt know this - we just found out from this post onwards in the thread about the TX redistricting. (And if I still get any of the below wrong, Fishin'/PDiddie/folks, please correct me).

At the last redistricting (two years ago?) the Reps therefore wanted a redrawing of boundaries that would make the distribution of seats more representative of the percentual proportion of votes. But the Dems controlled the Texas Legislature, as PDiddie explained in the same thread, and "the Republicans, furious at the unfairness of it all, walked out" - much like the Dems did now.

With that, [to go on with PDiddies quotes] the "Republicans denied quorum". Instead of "eliminating the 2/3 majority 'blocker' bill in the Senate" like the Reps are doing now, the Democratic majority "referred the matter to federal court, which established the current boundaries".

These new boundaries compensated the lopsided Dem advantage a little bit. The new map afforded TX two extra House seats, which both went to the Reps. But considering the Dems had enjoyed a lopsided advantage that had guaranteed them a four seats majority even while they got fewer votes, this compensation was only a halfway one at best.

Consequently, in the 2002 elections, the Republicans, with 53,3% of the vote, still only got 15 House seats; while the Democrats, with only 43,9% of the vote, got 17 House seats - two more. Thats an even less 'fair' representation of the popular vote than in 2000.

All of that is, in principle, a fair enough background for a Republican desire for new, more representative boundaries. And they probably want to grab the chance they have now - having acquired a majority in the TX State House - to make sure they get 'em.

Of course, I think there are other backgrounds to the current, mid-term redistricting push as well. I doubt that the push would have been quite so relentless as it is now if there wasn't also some White House-steered push behind it all.

Also, I'm sure there are lopsided advantages like the one in TX all over the place in the US - thats what you get when partisan State Houses get to decide over redistrictings (I wonder who decides about district boundaries in the UK, or Germany?). The one in TX warrants a fair enough complaint, but is I'm sure no worse than others in other states. So when you start considering them valid reasons for 'mid-term' redistrictings, you're opening a Pandora's Box.

Its funny cause there's an inverse argument to the Bush/Gore election here. Gore won more votes, but considering its the Electoral College that counts, he lost anyway. You can consider that unfair, but, as Republicans will point out - those be the rules, and it's better to stick to them even if they turn out to be unfair in this one particular case, cause you dont want to start tearing the rules of our system apart. Well, the same can be said about the redistrictings. They might not always turn out fair - the way they didnt turn out fair in TX last time round - but those be the rules and you'll get your next chance in eight years' time.

In Germany, to the best of my knowledge, the federal parliament decides about the district boundaries for federal elections and state parliaments decide about district boundaries for their respective state parliament elections, and so on. In any case, the topic is much less controversial here. We have proportionate representation, so our distribution of parliament seats is much less vulnerable to the exact location of district boundaries.

-- Thomas

Thats true, you have a representative in parliament for each district, but on top of that a number of extra seats that make sure the total for each party is (almost) proportional to the percentage of votes it got. So it wouldnt be an issue. But in the UK and France it would, I'd guess - hm, should find out some time.

Excellent post nimh, thank you.

Yes, well-summarized and analyzed, nimh.

I would add only that the Republicans' efforts in Texas, Colorado and beyond changes the sea; it portends that redistricting in nearly every state will become a biennial effort based on political advantage rather than a decennial one based on census changes (due exclusively to the megalomaniacal ego of a certain former pest exterminator from Sugar Land, TX).

Oh, that explains it. Pest exterminator huh?

It's true what you said about the redistricting, nimh. I accept that. But me objection doesn't have to do with tit for tat. It has to do with who is behind these efforts which are not limited to only one state. The religious far right is trying and succeeding to control the government of this country. And they are working behind the scenes. I don't know why it doesn't get more press that it has been getting in recent years. I remember a group of Republicans who were objecting to the take over of their party a few years back. But I have heard nothing lately. I wonder why.

I had a scary vision of the religious right having won. A sparklingly clean america with a rotten core and the rest of us in other countries. A mass emmigration. And we'll be sitting in Italy or China, or Australia saying, "I remember....."

Just a minor point on this item - the "Republican Walkout" wasn't on redistricting for Congressional seats. It was over Judicial redistricting and the legislature was denied a quorum for a grand total of one day. They also didn't run out of the state and hide in neighboring states.

Hmmmm...have you ever read Atwood's A Handmaid's Tale? Seems like we are headed toward becoming the "Republic of Gilead."

Hobit - nope, it's been suggested for me to read several times. Maybe I'll get to it someday.

Ther was a film done by HBO with Robert Duvall as the "commender," that while not completely faithful to the book, does give one a good inkling of the book. I've seen it on VHS in Blockbuster.