March 12, 2017

"Ruling that Republicans redrew the Texas congressional map to intentionally discriminate against Latino and black voters..."

"... a federal court panel invalidated three districts, including one in Travis County, in an order issued late Friday...."
The 2-1 ruling described a chaotic, hurried process that led to the 2011 congressional maps, redrawn to add four new districts, thanks to the state’s rapid population growth.

It was a time of “strong racial tension and heated debate about Latinos, Spanish-speaking people, undocumented immigration and sanctuary cities, and the contentious voter ID law,” the court said....

21 comments:

Brent said...

Seriously??

If one wants to find racism anywhere, one can always find racism everywhere.

Michael K said...

Anybody else notice the last names of the two judges ruling on discrimination?

I wonder if either is a member of a La Raza legal society ?

madAsHell said...

Boundaries are inherently discriminating.

cyrus83 said...

No matter how the lines get drawn, some demographic is always a minority in any district. If the underlying logic is that only someone from a specific racial demographic can represent that demographic's interests adequately, then a republic only makes sense in countries that are not multi-ethnic.

Tommy Duncan said...

Does anyone really think the major parties redistrict in the way they do to punish minorities?

Winning elections is everything.

This is similar to the claims a decade ago that banks discriminate against blacks, the evidence being the loan refusal rate. Banks don't care about your race, they care about making money. They loan money to people who can and will pay it back.

Think also about the so-called "food deserts" and the claim that supermarket chains discriminate in the geographic placement of their stores. Stores locate in profitable locations and location choice is a big deal to them. They care about the green of your money, not the color of your skin.

Fernandinande said...

At least only one-third of the government lawyers were wrong, which isn't too bad.

Luke Lea said...

I notice that because Texas did not go along with Obama's Medicaid expansion 32% of its residents lack medical insurance. How long before it goes as blue as California?

Gahrie said...

How long before it goes as blue as California?

That depends on how many illegal aliens self deport or are deported under Trump.

Mike Sylwester said...

The Democratic Party is the party of ethnic voting and fraudulent voting.

roadgeek said...

Mine was one of the three districts invalidated. I suffer under the representation of Lloyd Doggett, an immigration traitor and all-around Social Justice Warrior. The Texas Lege drew this district specifically to push Doggett out of office, but like a bad case of Athlete's Foot, he keeps coming back.

Yancey Ward said...

It is hilarious watching the Democrats trying to escape the trap they created for themselves by interpreting the Civil Rights Act as a mandate to create minority-majority districts.

If I were the Texas legislature, I would ignore this ruling altogether especially since the court panel refused to give a solution. I wouldn't lift a single finger to change the districts. However, once Gorsuch is confirmed, I am guessing this ruling will be overturned.

Jack Wayne said...

The thing that stands out to me is how uniformly bad Bush II's judges have turned out to be. I didn't like him when he was President and I like him less as time goes by.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Politicians gonna gerrymander. Count on it. Cure would be districting by pre-determined algorithm.

Start from State Capitol with North line. Sweep clockwise in spiral, taking in school districts until enough population is accumulated. State Govt has control over determining school districts. If Fed Govt control is desired, use ZIP codes instead.

Rick said...

What an amazing coincidence that when the legal profession in general and courts in general are staffed overwhelmingly with Democrats - who believe in achieving their goals By Any Means Necessary - and suddenly the law requires whatever is most advantageous to Democrats. Amazing.

PB said...

there's also the question of whether we consider all people in the state, legal residents, citizens, or citizens of voting age for apportionment.

PB said...

there's also the question of the validity of the 2010 census. What is corrupted/manipulated to achieve political goals?

n.n said...

As opposed to demographic redistricting subsidized through redistributive change (e.g. welfare). The judges sound like progressive [class] diversitists influenced by foreign interests. Probably the same kind that are willfully blind to the two parties to the Constitution: the People and our Posterity.

Lyle Smith said...

I live in a gerrymandered Texas district that is meant to elect an African-American politician... right now that is Shelia Jackson Lee. If the district were just a square box she'd struggle to get elected, I think.

Chuck said...

Lyle Smith said...
I live in a gerrymandered Texas district that is meant to elect an African-American politician... right now that is Shelia Jackson Lee. If the district were just a square box she'd struggle to get elected, I think.


And the Voting Rights Act doesn't just tolerate that; it DEMANDS that kind of districting. The so-called "majority minority" districts.

Abigail Thernstrom, formerly a vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, did a monograph for AEI on the subject:

http://www.aei.org/publication/redistricting-race-and-the-voting-rights-act/


The Godfather said...

I don't know the facts of this case, beyond the facts stated in the news report (I should probably say "facts"), but I do know politicians, and I think what they care about in districting is maximizing the number of seats that their party is likely to win. There may have been a time and place when/where (Democratic) legislators (in the South) focused on discriminating against Black voters as such -- but my recollection is that they focused their discrimination on preventing Blacks from voting at all. Correct me if I'm wrong.

My guess is that in this case (a) the Republican legislature re-drew district lines to minimize the seats the Democrats were likely to win, which I think is still legal, and (b) some idiot in the process of accomplishing goal (a) allowed himself to be caught on record using "hispanic" or "Black" as a shorthand description of a pro-Democratic neighborhood. Either that or (c) the court just inferred (made up) (b) from the fact of (a).

Note that this is entirely one-sided. No federal court is ever going to invalidate a districting plan on the ground that the (Democratic) legislature managed to minimize the number of "White" or "Anglo" voters in the course of creating a safe Democratic district. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Anga2010 said...

Thanks for this! I was only hearing and reading about the dissent (good reading, btw https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2017/03/11/federal-judge-blasts-unprofessional-behavior-of-justice-department-lawyers/) until I saw this today.