Can someone explain the redistricting issue to me?

While I know that it was probably illegal, I'm not sure that I really understand why... they re-districted voters in such a way as to change the proportions of Dem/Repub in the districts... does this mean that they consolidated Dem votes so that they wouldn't challenge Repubs, or what? Little help, please? Thanks!

they broke apart democratic majority districts and districts with high minority populations and diluted them into majority republican districts as complete political minorities.

How is districting usually done, then? Geographically? I guess I can't think of a way to do it 'fairly' if you already have information about who lives where and votes how, other than to just split the physical area up in an unbiased way... if such a thing exists?

physical demographics. Think "university park", "medical city", "little mexico", "china town", Spanish Harlem, SoHo, etc. and other favorite names that describe mostly culturally demographic districts usually bordered by highways, parks, rivers, or other public works in most cities.

So the census in theory helps validate these districts, but you really need other guidelines too to avoid abuse. For instance, in sui's book a district should be roughly square where possible and cannot be more than two times longer along its longest axis than it is wide on a perpendicular axis or some such. That would keep districts form forming that are a hundred miles long and one mile wide or that loop-dee-loop through other districts like an ampersand "&", such as we have in Texas.

Oh yeah it's rotten to the core here.

One problem is that there is no single objective set of criteria. For example, sui mentions physical characteristics and the non-compact nature of some districts. Those criteria themselves could conflict. (If there's a river running north-south with a long stretch unbridged, then two long north-south districts, one on each bank, might make more sense than drawing a line from east to west and having two districts that are both split by a river.)

Then you add in other factors: political boundaries (there's something to be said for following such existing borders as townships, counties, etc.); previous districting (there's something to be said for preserving previous district lines, but that might mean locking in one party's unfair advantage); communities of interest (district lines might reasonably follow patterns of ethnicity or income or whatever -- well-to-do whites on Manhattan's Upper West Side might more appropriately share a district with well-to-do whites on the Upper East Side, even though Harlem is closer geographically); and minority empowerment (black and Hispanic leaders typically want districts that bring many of their people together, because a district with only a slight majority of people of color will often elect a white candidate whose supporters are more likely to register and vote).

DeLay, of course, was purely seeking partisan advantage. My point is that a completely neutral, independent, and disinterested person, assigned to draw the lines without regard to helping one party or the other, will still have many choices to make, with no clear objective basis for making them.

Redistricting happens every 10 years, after the census, as mandated by the Constitution. Texas underwent the standard redistricting after the 2000 census.

Delay and others did not like it, and worked to get more Repubs elected to the State legislature (using illegal campaign funds, but thats another story). The State legislature in 2003/4 voted to redistrict again, shifting some districts to lean more republican, and in some cases splitting up districts held by democrats to make it difficult for them to get re-elected. You may remember the democrats in the state legislature walking out and fleeing to Oklahoma to deny a quorum on these votes, but ultimately the repubs won.

2004, the new district map went into effect, and Texas sent 9 more Repubs to Congress than previously.

2005, SCOTUS finally reviews the redistricting. The questions before the court:

1. Does the Constitution prohibit more than one redistricting per census?

2. Does the redistricting violate the Fair Voting Act by diluting the voting strength of minorities?

3. Does the redistricting violate the Fair Voting Act by using data that was out of date at the time? (data from 2000 census used in 2003/4)

4. Does the Constitution prohibit redistricting that is politically motivated? (Delay and others have admitted that there was political motivation)


As it is the Supreme Court, they dont need to answer any or all of these questions. They may rule the redistricting illegal on one point, and remain silent on the rest. Or they may decide to rule on all points (unlikely).

That's a good summary for those (like me) who know that it's an issue, but don't understand exactly why. Thanks for the information!

(using illegal campaign funds, but thats another story)

Actually, it is EXACTLY the same story, using illegal funds to finance an illegal redistricting.

And that is why the Hammer is getting hammered.

that while they are related, even if the legislators were elected using illegal funds, they are still legislators and the bills they passed are still binding. You can't remove them from office for it, or cancel any actions they took.

1. After review by lawyers from the Dept. of Justice's civil rights group the redistricting
was seen as marginalizing black and hispanic voters. They were over ruled by bush
appointees.

2. Redistricting is supposed to be done after a census not whenever it is political expedient.

3. DeLay used money and agents from the dept. of Homeland to tract down democratic reps
from the Texas Legislature who left the state so the Texas Legislature could not convene to
pass the redistricting.

4. DeLay used laundered corporate funds to pay for his pact which got the redistricting done.

5. The only seats that the GOP picked up in 04 were the 5 in the newly gerrymandered districts of
Texas.

One district was this long thin 5 county rectangle, not much north and south but it went way way far east and west. It was a joke.

... and county boundaries and city boundaries and school dstrict boundaries and, and, and ... like the boundaries of Congressional Districts are changed?

No other political geography is manipulated iin anything close to the way in which CD's are manipulated ... irrespective of any other boundaries except state boundaries.

The reason it needs to be done is that the number of a state's representatives to the US House of Representatives often changes. If your state had three representatives before a census, and you get four afterward, you need to geographically change your congressional districts from 3 to 4, and end up with the same amount of population in each.

Politicians have often used the redistricting opportunity to gain an advantage, through a tactic that is known as gerrmandering.

DeLay and company broke precedent by redistricting Texas after the state legislature had come under Republican control. Questionable funding maneuvers were used by repukes to gain the current majority there, resulting in money laundering indictments against DeLay and others. Their unprecedented redistricting had no purpose but to gain a political advantage for repukes. There are currently about 6 more repuke members in the US House of Representatives than there otherwise would be, thanks to the DeLay plan that gutted Democratic districts. Georgia is but one state that wants to follow DeLay's example.

Here's the potentially illegal part (except for the money laundering): Texas is one state that has had a track record of discrimination against minority voters. As such, they must get permission from the federal government before they can enact a redistricting plan. Career lawyers rejected the DeLay plan because it illegally discriminated against minority voters. But Bush cartel political appointees overruled them - which was a highly unusual move. I believe some of the career lawyers resigned in protest.

This is the issue that is going to the Supreme Court.

cities grow and shrink, but each district must have roughly the same number of people. Redistricting is supposed to correct this.

In the early 20th century, as populations shifted into the cities, some politicians refused to redistrict their states which made rural districts more powerful. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was meant to correct this, among other things.

was that the Repukes in TX were charged with the duty to re-draw the lines after the 2000 census.

They didn't bother, so the courts re-drew the districts. Those districts were upheld as constitutional.

After that, the Repukes decided they didn't like those maps, and re-drew the districts long after they were supposed to. Questionable legality. Then they held sessions to try to hammer them through before the courts could intervene.

Then, after whatever transpired, the courts re-drew the districts just like you say. As soon as the repukes took control of the TX legislature, the districts were re-re-drawn by DeLay.