so what is the lawyer terms for what they did wrong? (fraud? misuse of federal resources? lying to federal officers?)
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05162003/nation_w/57385.asp
Every once in a while, the good guys win one.
To this point I’ve been kinda amused by the situation. But looking at the proposed map, I am outraged. The proposal would have put Bowie county in a district with part of the Metroplex; but not with our immediate neighbor Cass County.
If there was any doubt about the nefarious intention, it is gone now. In addition to the attempt to increase Republican control, this would unduely weaken our voice on one of the most important environmental issues in the area. Our local delegates have been instrumental in putting a hold on the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir - a project that united the Sierra Club and the Timber Industry in opposition.
This boondoggle would create a reservoir in NE Texas that would kill the environmentally unique Caddo Lake and decimate the timber industry. The purpose of the resevior is to provide water to the Dallas Metroplex. The Metroplex has the highest per capita water use of any city in Texas - including the more arid cities of San Antonio or El Paso! Dallas currently uses 264 gal/person/day. El Paso uses just under 150 gal/person/day. (Source: 2002 Texas State Water Plan as quoted on the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club)
By dividing up the NE Texas delegatation and mixing in Dallas-area voters, we could lose the strong voice of our representatives that have killed this project in the Region D Water Plan. It still remains as part of the Region C Water Plan and could be forced trough if we have a representative from Dallas instead of one looking out for our interests.
Just when I thought this story couldn’t get any weirder: Willie Nelson sends whiskey and bandanas to the runaway Democrats.
I guess it really is like that liberated Iraqi put it: Democracy! Whisky! Sexy! 
What I’ve been trying to do is simply find out if the proportion of registered Republicans to Registered Democrats for the general Texas population reflects the current proportion of Republican/Democratic congressional seats better under the proposed redistricting than the current one.
According to DeLay the imbalance in the current scenario is large and egregious enough to warrant redistricting.
Obviously.
If it’s true he may have a point. If voters are being disenfrancised artifially by unrepresentative districting to a large degree, it should be corrected.
The makeup should reflect that of the voters.
I would like to see the raw data myself.
See! They really ARE improving Oklahoma.
Enjoy,
Steven
This seems to address the issue from a Republican viewpoint.
you’re making a rather large assumption here that people who voted for a particular candidate did so because of party affiliations, vs. strength of that particular candidate and would continue to do so in each case.
I agree that it would be an odd thing that if a State had 80% registered Rep. and 10 % Dems and have 80% elected Dems and 20% elected Reps, but that’s not the case here.
There are no registered Republicans anywhere in the entire state of Texas.
No registered Democrats either. 
Enjoy,
Steven
[sub]The state of Texas does not record political party affiliation during the voter registration process.[/sub]
Ah, Scylla, why should legislative districts be apportioned along the lines of anything but the raw number of heads?
Redistricting in its purest form is just supposed to be about redrawing the lines to represent population shifts, not ideological shifts. Redistricting with an eye towards guaranteeing a certain number of Republican seats is no better in my mind’s eye than redistricting to ensure a certain number of black seats.
If Texas Republicans want to argue that the redistricting plan set up by the federal court is flawed in some way based on population movements or geography, fine (on preview, I see the editorial you cite makes just those types of claims). Hell, if they want to say that redistricting is a prerogative of the legislature that should not be punted to the courts and that they are thus just reclaiming a right that properly belongs to the lege, I’m fine with that too. But redistricting ought not be about nakedly guaranteeing a certain number of seats for a given political party.
Having said all that, it has been said that watching laws being made is akin to watching hot dogs being manufactured – both are difficult to stomach thereafter. And of all the ugliness that goes on in the legislative process, the ugliest stuff is saved for districting fights. It is pure, unadulterated power politics. Screaming that the other side is acting in a partisan fashion to increase their power and then running to another state is foolish – of course the other side is doing that. The Ardmore Bunch would do it too, were the majorities reversed and they thought they could get away with it.
Wring:
Yeah, it’s a potentially faulty assumption, but a good starting point.
I did find this though
http://www.reporter-news.com/abil/nw_state/article/0,1874,ABIL_7974_1951753,00.html
This seems reasonably fair and balance to my non-Texan ears.
If I understand this correctly, the legislature failed to do the districting in 2001. Republicans are complaining that the judicial committee which did it instead, did it unfairly, creating a very partisan map, and believe that the legistlature should do the districting not the courts.
The Repbulicans are saying the legislature should create the map and that’s part of the rationale for the initiative.
They are claiming that the old map is unfair against them, so they want to replace it with one that is unfair against the Democrats.
Of particular interest is the sentence saying that five seats currently held by Democrats are held in very Republican districts.
The Republicans simply have not been able to capture their own vote.
So it appears DeLay’s complaint is accurate. Republicans don’t hold the proportionate number of seats that they should.
Unfortunately for DeLay that does not have anything to do with the Districting, but has to do with the fact that in certain Republican districts the Republican voters like the Democrat better than the Republican.
Assuming that all of the above is a correct interpretation, than it looks to me like the redistricting attempt is a crummy trick to pull at this time, and cannot be justified as creating a more accurate reflection of voter intent.
So I gues we can all be proud of the Brave Democrats who bravely ran away in order to protect the rights of Republican voters all over Texas!
No offense, but Texas is a very silly place.
Were truer words ever spoken?
Daniel
We prefer “colorful.”
Personally, I’m always very leary of districts that seem to be cut funny geographically. So, when I see/hear of plans to have what appear to be barbells (large tract connected to another large tract some distance away but connected by narrow tract of land) I’d assume some shenanigans.
This happened to us in MI last round, Ingham county (pretty heavily liberal, large city Plus university/ medium sized city surrounded by very very tiny rural towns) ended up in the same congressional district with a county south of us, with several medium sized conservative towns. So, an area which as had a liberal Dem representing it’s interests in Congress for decades suddenly has a very very conservative Republican (elected on such a very narrow margin that there was an automatic recount).
Important since the two counties involved have very different populations and very very different issues of importance (one is far more industrial, while the other has far more agricultural/ touristy). Over and above actual partisan issues, the needs of the folks in the industrial county run divergent from the needs/interests of the other. and yet now they both have the same congressional rep, (who is from the agricultural one)
The 2002 Election Results(PDF) are very interesting. On first scan I notice that all the Congressmen who were Democrats this year were also incumbents(all except district 25 as far as I can see, although there were a couple of districts where Dems won because the GOP didn’t even field a candidate). Basic fact of elections, incumbents have a HUGE advantage. I’d guess that a fair bit of Mr. DeLay’s alleged “imbalance” is simply inertia and people sticking with what they know instead of voting in a new candidate.
Sure, Texas may be overwhelmingly conservative, but they voted for Democrats in the federal congressional sections of the 2002 elections. It is pretty clear in the election results.
Enjoy,
Steven
My apologies if I’ve missed this information, but has anyone broken down the percentage of people who voted for a Democratic House Representative in 2002 vs. those who voted for a Republican House Representative?
This might be the clearest picture we can get of whether the current districts are proportionate.
Daniel
again - that assumes that the voter voted for the party vs. the person. and I don’t think you can make that assumption.
plus it also assumes that congressional representation should be done via population basis vs. the current population/geographical basis.
I get that. But let’s say that Texas voted in 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans, but of those who voted, 3 million voted for the Republican candidate, whereas 2 million voted for the Democratic candidate – in other words, in districts where the Republican won, they won overwhelmingly, whereas in districts where the Democrat won, they barely squeaked by to a victory.
If that were the case, it might speak to some sort of pro-Democratic gerrymandering happening. It wouldn’t be proof positive, but it would sure look suspicious.
Daniel
again, assuming that it was the party vs. the candidate/issues, which is a big leap, especially the in local type elections (vs. statewide, national etc).