Suck it, Tom Delay

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And the court passing the plan was a perfectly legitimate way for it to be accomplished under Texas law, given the legislative failure to act.

But has ZERO to do with a rule about the LEGISLATURE passing only one redistricting.
Simple enough, even for a socialist, that a court is not same thing a a legislature?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
But has ZERO to do with a rule about the LEGISLATURE passing only one redistricting.
Simple enough, even for a socialist, that a court is not same thing a a legislature?

You seem to be missing the simple fact that redistricting is mandated by the constitution for only once every 10 years--no matter WHO does it. So the court doing it was the shot.

It's pretty obvious the legislature rule is stated precisely for the purpose of maintaining the redistricting being only once every 10 years. So the GOP ramming through redistricing two years later is violating the spirit of the rule, anyway. Not hard to see that.

Since the redistricting in 2000 was done by a nonpartisan panel of judges, they can hardly claim it was somehow unfair or improperly done.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You seem to be missing the simple fact that redistricting is mandated by the constitution for only once every 10 years--no matter WHO does it. So the court doing it was the shot.

Wrong again layman, no such rule in the constitution (and that would be law, not a fact, simple or otherwise). The only restrition to once in the ten year census period is to the taking of the cesus itself. The same clasue describes apportioment of numbers of districts to the states, but says ZERO about how many times the state may redistrict their respective apportionment. IIRC, cesus apportionment is artitle I, section 2, clause 3 (amened as to 'whole persons' by the XVI amendment).
I suspect, however, since you did not make the argument earlier, but only after a lower priority (state legislative rule) BS was disposed of, that you know that already, and your 'simple fact' was a simple lie.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Wrong again layman, no such rule in the constitution (and that would be law, not a fact, simple or otherwise). The only restrition to once in the ten year census period is to the taking of the cesus itself
The same clasue describes apportioment of numbers of districts to the states, but says ZERO about how many times the state may redistrict their respective apportionment. IIRC, cesus apportionment is artitle I, section 2, clause 3 (amened as to 'whole persons' by the XVI amendment).

This has nothing to do with what I said--I explicitley stated it was NOT a legal issue. What I said--and is entirely correct--is that the Texas legislature is REQUIRED to redistrict after ever decennial census. Says so in Article III, Sec. 28 of the state constitution.

And I know that nothing limits, constitutionally, more redistricting--SCOTUS upheld that. It isn't about redistricting being illegal, it's about it being a snarky violation of established protocol that will open the floodgates to biannual political upheaval in the state.

That there was a legislative rule about the decennial redistricting supports the view that it was expected, when the rule was made, that redistricting would only be done every 10 years.

Tell me, what other reason could the GOP have other than partisan politics to redistrict two years after the previous redistricting was carried out by a bipartisan panel?

[Ramo]

The second the Dems get a majority again, they'll have the precedent to do it. It could go on like that forever. Let's see what that does to voter disenfranchisement when nobody knows what the hell district they belong to anymore.

The Dems don't need to since it's already like that. In the past year, moving between apartments within Austin, I've lived in three different Congressional Districts...

[chequita guevara]

You, Texas gerrymandering doesn't really matter. Despite the change in parties, it's the same people. Conservative Democrats just became conservative Republicans.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
The was the panel of judges after the legislature failed to pass a plan. The legislature rules only apply the actions of the legislature, twit. The court having made a plan does not count as the legislature having passed a plan. The legislature has duly passed only one redistricting plan since the census. You could have firuged that out, even from a crappy article the world socialist website.

So in other words you are telling me that the GOP looked at the polls, saw they were likely to win seat in that election and so intentionally rejected the panel of judge's bipartisan redistricting plan in order to gerrymander the whole state in the next session. How is that not immoral?

[Lefty Scaevola]

I said no such thing, prevaricator. The first session of the legislature after the census could not act becasue fo factionialization among the majority (r) and obsbruction tactics by the minority (d) so one was imposed by court panel, the next session took up the task again with the squabbling in the majority, and overcame continuing osstruction tatactis by the democ minority including quorum breaking (the only legislative rule breaking invovled, Agathon, and by the Dems).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, this is amusing. Boris trying to argue Texas law with a lawyer from Texas... I think I know which one I trust more .

[Ned]

Well, out here in Kalifornia, Arnie is talking about redistricting to "undo" the highly partisan Gerrymandering done here by the Demoncrats. He is talking about doing it in an "apolitical" way.

This is just one of the reasons why the Demons out here are hopping mad at the very effective Arnold Schwarzennegger. He is stripping the of their ill gotten gains.