Robert Draper, my former colleague at TEXAS MONTHLY, has written a piece about redistricting in the current issue of the Atlantic. One of the main characters in his story is Tom Hofeller, the former redistricting director of the Republican National Committee, now a paid consultant and a master of the dark arts of cartography.

Draper, the grandson of Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski, delves deep into the mysteries of redistricting, focusing on Texas, with some attention paid to North Carolina, California, and a few other states. The problem for Republicans in Texas, as readers know, was that the state’s population grew by 4.3 million over the last decade. Hispanics accounted for 2.8 million of this growth and African-Americans for another half-million. The growth rate for Anglo Texans was a paltry 4.2 percent. Draper writes:

“In other words, without the minority growth, Texas–now officially a majority-minority state–Texas would not have received a single new [congressional] district. The possibility that a GOP map-drawer would use all those historically Democratic-leaning transplants as a means of gaining Republican seats might strike a redistricting naif as undemocratic. And yet, that’s exactly what the Texas redistricting bosses did last year.”

Many readers will recall the discussions that took place when the numbers became known. Should the new districts be divided evenly between R’s and D’s? Should Republicans, as the majority party, be entitled to three of the four seats? Draper says, “… The Texans produced lavishly brazen maps that resulted in a net gain of four districts for Republicans and none for minority populations.” This is, of course, incorrect. The actual result was that Republicans got three seats, the Democrats one, a majority-minority district that merged predominantly Hispanic west Dallas County with predominantly African-American east Tarrant County and is likely to elect Marc Veasey, an African-American Democrat in November–an outcome that seems fair to me, given the relative strength of the parties.

Draper quotes Hofeller as saying that the Texas redistricting process should serve as “a cautionary tale of how a remap effort can go wrong.”

“The new horror story will be Texas, which stood, this past cycle, as a powerful example of how reckless a redistricting process can become,” Draper writes.

Apparently, relations between the state and the RNC’s redistricting experts did not go well. Draper quotes an unnamed GOP legislative leader as saying Hofeller and Republican National Committee counsel Dale Oldham “created an adversarial relationship” and “rubbed raw” the Legislature’s bigwigs. Texas instead used inexperienced staff and legislative point men, Draper says.

U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., the House GOP campaign committee’s vice chair overseeing congressional remapping efforts for this cycle, told Draper the state’s legislative leaders solicited no advice. “Well, the Texas Legislature basically told me, ’We’re Texas, and we’re gonna handle our maps,’” Westmoreland said. “You know, I’m just saying that when you have a population increase of 4 million, and the majority of that is minority, you’d better take that into consideration.”

* * * *

It’s pretty clear what happened. Hofeller, Oldham, and Westmoreland met with the staffers who were entrusted with drawing the maps and warned them not to overreach. So what did they do? They overreached. “We’re Texas and we’re going to handle our own maps.” Yes, that sounds exactly like what our boys would say. “We don’t need no stinkin’ help from Washington.” I don’t know who the  “bigwigs” referred to in the story were, but they got what they deserved: a federal court ruling that the Texas maps engaged in intentional discrimination. This is what happens when the attorney general acts like a politician rather than a lawyer. It was evident from the moment the map for the Texas House of Representatives came out that the scheme ignored Hispanic growth. Why Abbott thought they could get away with it is a mystery to me.

Well, the Republicans have had their fun. With continued growth among minorities, and no prospect for growth among Anglo Texans, 2011 is likely to be the last time Republicans will control the redistricting process in Texas.

Tagged: redistricting

Rick Perry’s recent pronouncement about religion and politics—“Church and state separation is the devil’s work”—is an indication of why he will not get anywhere if he tries to run for president again. He might as well wear a stamp on his forehead labeled “extremist.”

No doubt there are people in America who agree with him, but there are many more who will be repelled by Perry’s comments and who respect the wisdom of “render unto Caesar.” It wasn’t just “oops” that sank his presidential race in 2011-12; it was also his personality. It was dark, menacing, and angry. His campaign was devoid of uplifting messages. He was ready to come to blows with Romney over immigration. His threat against Bernanke was over the top (and misguided). The Republican electorate didn’t buy what Perry was selling in 2011-12, and they aren’t going to buy it in 2016 unless Perry moderates his anger. It is a complete misjudgment for Perry to adopt this persona, when he is fundamentally a likeable fellow. America is not a theocracy, and Perry will not get elected president by pandering to the evangelical right–not that he won’t try.

Tagged: rick perry

I wrote the cover story in the current issue of TEXAS MONTHLY. The subject is the future of higher education generally and the threats to the academic reputation of UT-Austin in particular. In the story I deal with Governor Perry’s attempt, starting in 2008, to control higher ed by seeking to impose “breakthrough solutions” that would radically alter the way higher education is governed, in ways that are at times inconsistent with the mission of a Tier 1 university. Some of the reforms proposed were intriguing, but none are in general use.

The latest concern is that recent appointees to the Board of Regents, several of them connected to the influential Texas Public Policy Foundation, have an ideological agenda concerning the governance of UT-Austin–expanding enrollment and reducing funding–that may jeopardize the academic stature of the university. UT is not the only campus in the state to face this threat; at one point, Texas A&M was in danger of losing its membership in the Association of American Universities, the “club” of the nation’s leading research universities. The objective of my story is to relate how this state of affairs came to exist and how it might impact the state’s leading universities.

Tagged: higher education

The case of Abigail Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin, an affirmative action case involving undergraduate admissions to UT-Austin, is scheduled to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court some time this fall. I wrote about the case in an April BTL, and last night, I watched the broadcast on C-Span of a symposium hosted  by the Cato Institute that dealt largely with cases that were disposed of in the spring; however, in the Q-and-A that followed, members of the audience asked questions about cases that will be heard in the October term. One of them was Fisher. The case did not spur a lively discussion. One legal scholar opined that UT would almost surely lose the case, that the Court has little sympathy for affirmative action. But another pointed out that the plaintiff has graduated from another college, in which case the Court could determine that the issue was moot and leave the case undecided. That is probably the best possible outcome for UT.

Tagged: higher education

Matt Mackowiak tackled the issue in the Statesman, in an opinion piece headlined “Redistricting doesn’t need fixing.” He writes:

With the primary elections in a redistricting year now in the rearview mirror, the predictable lament of losing candidates is to blame the district lines.

If only the process were fair!

Elected officials don’t own the voters. They don’t own their districts. They are allowed to rent them, for two-, four- or six-year periods, contingent upon review by the voters.

Incumbents have all the advantages — official staff, travel budget, favors to offer, ability to raise money, high name recognition.

If you are an incumbent, and you lost, you have no one to blame but yourself….

* * * *

Of course, that is not a true statement. If you are an incumbent in the minority party, you are at the mercy of the majority. In a one-party state like Texas, the majority has all the advantages in redistricting. It controls the process. If you are an incumbent in the minority party and you lost, all you can do is to blame the majority party, and that will get you nowhere. They drew the map that generated the district lines that defeated the losing candidates. Back to Mr. Mackowiak:

While this harsh reality escapes some, a new debate, which is revisited every 10 years, has emerged. Should we take redistricting out of the hands of the Legislature? Should we change the process in place for decades? The U.S. Constitution requires that the state governing body is responsible for reapportionment every Census period. It does not say “judges” or “independent commissions.”

What Mr. Mackowiak misses here is that in almost every redistricting cycle, the issue IS taken out of the hands of the Legislature. The Constitution may not say “judges,” but in every redistricting cycle that I can recall, the constitutionality of the maps has been ultimately decided by the courts, not the Legislature. This year was no exception. The D.C. court determined that the Legislature’s maps were drawn with discriminatory intent. In most redistricting cycles, if not in every redistricting cycle, the final say belongs to the courts, not to the elected officials. If I were in the minority, I would trust the courts to be fair long before I would dream of relying on the hope of receiving fair treatment at the hands of the people’s representatives. Mr. Mackowiak is entitled to believe that the best way to achieve fairness in redistricting is by applying the collective judgment of the Legislature, but past experience records that the courts do a far better job of protecting the rights of the minority. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we have courts.

Tagged: redistricting

It has always been my policy that anyone may post comments on this blog. In fact, a large part of the success of this blog has been the community of commenters that has developed around it. I have only asked that comments show respect for other readers, as well as for the public figures who are mentioned in blog posts and comments.

Unfortunately, from time to time, and, increasingly in recent weeks, some commenters have been posting scurrilous remarks about public figures, some of them of a very personal nature. In other cases, readers have taken over comment threads by posting long responses that are not at all related to the topic at hand. As a result, I have considered moderating comments before they are published, but I think that would take away from the spontaneity of the blog. I want to do that only as a last resort.

Consequently, I would respectfully request that readers refrain from posting material containing sexual innuendo or allegations of crimes and/or conspiracies. I will not allow contributors to post inappropriate comments about individuals who are public figures. There is plenty to write about in the daily events that take place in this state. Cogent criticism and analysis is always welcome.  Inappropriate comments will be deleted immediately.

Thank you for respecting these guidelines–and for reading this blog.

Paul Burka

From the San Antonio Express News:

The Air Force chose a woman Saturday to lead its basic training unit at a Texas base where dozens of female recruits have alleged they were sexually assaulted or harassed by male instructors within the past year. Col. Deborah Liddick is taking command of the 737th Training Group, bringing a distinctly new face of authority to Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio. Six male instructors have been charged with crimes ranging from rape to adultery, and there are others still under investigation.

* * * *

Why am I writing about this? you may ask, reasonably enough. The answer is that it is very odd that six male instructors have been charged with crimes “ranging from rape to adultery,” and there are others “still under investigation,” for the simple reason that adultery is not a crime in Texas. I’m all for getting to the bottom of the harassment and abuse directed against women in the basic training unit, but I seriously doubt that any instructors were charged with adultery, since adultery is not a crime in Texas. It is punishable, however, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The answer is, “It (punishment of adultery) depends upon the circumstances,” which generally means whether it is matter of morale.

The internal rifts within the Republican party are getting more frequent and more serious. From an AP story in yesterday’s Statesman:

At least three Republican electors say they may not support their party’s presidential ticket when the Electoral College meets in December to formally elect the new president, escalating tensions within the GOP and adding a fresh layer of intrigue to the final weeks of the White House race.

Supporters of Ron Paul have expressed their frustration against the Republican Party’s refusal to give them a voice in their own party. The Associated Press reports: “’They’ve never given Ron Paul a fair shot, and I’m disgusted with that. I’d like to show them how disgusted I am,’ said Melinda Wadsley, an Iowa mother of three who was selected a Republican elector earlier this year. She said she believes Paul is the better choice and noted that the Electoral College was founded with the idea that electors wouldn’t just mimic the popular vote.”

The electors — all are supporters of former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul — said they are exploring options should Mitt Romney win their states. 

One of the electors who is threatening to go rogue is from Texas. Her name is Billie Zimmerman, and she calls the RNC “a shocking display of deception and treachery and cheating.”

* * * *

And another report, this one from the Web site AllVoices.com, about how America could end up with a Republican president and Democrat for vice president:

This may seem like a far-fetched idea, but it is possible. As the rift within the Republican Party continues, this unexpected possibility is rearing its head. This may be the best chance our nation has to re-establish a sense of unity instead of allowing further division to continue to grow.

Supporters of Ron Paul have expressed their frustration against the Republican Party’s refusal to give them a voice in their own party. The Associated Press reports: “’They’ve never given Ron Paul a fair shot, and I’m disgusted with that. I’d like to show them how disgusted I am,’ said Melinda Wadsley, an Iowa mother of three who was selected a Republican elector earlier this year. She said she believes Paul is the better choice and noted that the Electoral College was founded with the idea that electors wouldn’t just mimic the popular vote.”

At least three electors for the Republican Party have expressed this sentiment. This raises some new concerns for the party as well as voters nationwide. At this time, no formal discussions have been held by Paul supporters on a national level.

So how would we end up with a Republican president and a vice president from the Democratic Party? If Romney or President Obama fail to receive the necessary Electoral College votes in December, it would force the House to determine who wins the presidency. If the House were to remain in the control of the Republican Party, they would most likely elect Romney. The Senate would then be called upon to elect the Vice President. If the Democrats maintain control over the Senate, they would most likely elect Joe Biden. This would leave America with a Republican president and a vice president who is a Democrat.

The Associated Press reports, “The last time multiple electors defected was in 1896, when William Jennings Bryan was the presidential candidate of both the Democratic Party and the People’s Party, with both parties choosing different vice presidential picks. Twenty-seven electors in that race chose the People’s Party ticket, even though it didn’t win the popular vote.”

Voters have always considered the votes cast by the electors as symbolic. However, laws are in place in approximately one half of the nation to require electors to cast their vote with their party, leaving the electors in remaining states with the power to cast their vote the way they choose. However, for example, the law in Nevada carries no punishment for failure to comply. This may leave America in a situation that would be extraordinary, to say the least.

Electors have started to speak out on this issue. Nevada’s electors are a unique group. Four of the six slots are filled by Ron Paul supporters. Jesse Law is one of them. The Associated Press reports: “Jesse Law, an elector and Paul supporter, said he may have qualms with Romney but has always intended to cast his electoral vote for the party nominee. ‘I just want to beat Obama,’ Law said. But Ken Eastman may not cast his Nevada electoral vote for Romney, if the former Massachusetts governor wins the state. Eastman said he wants to explore options with Republican leaders in Clark County, a group now dominated by Paul supporters. ‘I’m undecided at this point,’ Eastman said, adding that he’s ‘pretty disgusted’ with the national Republican Party and how it has worked to suppress Paul’s grassroots movement. He said the GOP has not been open to an influx of people with different ideas.”

Nevada’s Ken Searles expressed interest in casting his vote for Paul if it would not affect the final outcome of the election as a method of protest against his party. Billie Zimmerman, an elector from Texas, called the RNC a “shocking display of deception and treachery and cheating.” Zimmerman is undecided on how to cast her vote. Alaska’s Kathleen Miller has also expressed the possibility of casting a vote for Paul if it would not affect the final outcome of the election. Her vote would be cast in protest against leaders of the Republican Party’s “shenanigans.”

To win the election, a candidate must receive 270 of the 538 electoral votes. In 1825, the House selected John Quincy Adams when none of the candidates received the number of votes that were necessary. Electors have cast votes outside their party’s line in more recent history as well. In 2004, John Edwards received one elector vote in Minnesota. In 2000 an elector abstained in protest of what was perceived as a lack of congressional representation in their district.

As we rapidly approach the Presidential election of 2012, this new possibility will make voters stop to ponder the idea of a White House split between the parties. Although this possibility does not seem realistic, it leaves one wondering if this might be just exactly what our nation needs. If we have leaders setting the example of working together, it may set the bar for Americans nationwide.

Tagged: 2012

I’m referring to the recent poll by Wilson Perkins Allen that shows Romney leading Obama in Texas by 55-40. (McCain had similar numbers, 55-44.) With Democrats getting only 40% of the vote, what’s the surprise in these numbers? There is none. Obama is not providing enough coattails for Democratic legislative candidates to win seats. I question whether the Democratic party has the resources to generate a get-out-the-vote effort that might perceptibly narrow the gap. The only interesting data point is that Romney is getting only 32% of the Hispanic vote. In the long run–and it may be very long indeed–Republicans cannot continue to win elections while getting less than a third of the Hispanic vote. But that won’t become apparent until the end of this decade.

…the reaction from the right wing of the Republican party is going to be a ferocious backlash of “We told you so.” The GOP decided to stick with the front-runner, Mitt Romney, as is its long-established habit, and while it is certainly too early to say that Romney is in trouble, recent polling, particularly in key states like Ohio and Virginia, does not look good.

The message of the right will be that Republicans have had successive failures with moderate, establishment candidates like Romney and McCain (you can throw George H. W. Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996 in there too) who do not energize the base, and that Republicans will not start winning again until they start nominating “real-deal” conservatives. The energy in the Republican party is with insurgent groups like the Ron Paulers and the Tea Party. The Republican field for 2016 is strong but it lacks social conservatives like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann. The door could even open for the likes of Sarah Palin and Rick Perry. The dilemma for R’s is that the social conservative message turns off the independents and the establishment Republicans.

The right’s message will emerge about one second after the networks call the race. The scenario works, of course, only if Obama wins.

Here’s what Rush Limbaugh had to say early in the campaign season about the Republican disdain for the party’s right wing:

The Republican establishment, for the most part, if they could, would simply excommunicate every social conservative Republican they could find. They’d kick ‘em out of the party, and they would gag ‘em.  They’d find a way to make sure they couldn’t speak.  That’s how much they hate ‘em, detest ‘em, are embarrassed by them.  And it’s based on one thing, primarily. It’s based on the fact that these establishment Republicans and others who don’t like the social conservatives are primarily, singularly worried about what people are going to think of them for being in the same party with the social conservatives.  It really is no more complicated than that.  I mean there are other things.  They think social conservatives lose elections.  They think social conservatives make the whole Republican Party a big target, like what’s going on now, this contraception business.

* * * *

Here are the odds for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, from the Web site 2016 ELECTION.COM

Chris Christie 7/1

Mark Rubio 7/1

Sarah Palin 9/1

Paul Ryan 12/1

Rand Paul 15/1

Jeb Bush 18/1

Mike Huckabee 18/1

Eric Cantor 20/1

Bob McDonnell 25/1

John Kasich 38/1

John Thune 30/1

Jon Huntsman 30/1

Bobby Jindal 30/1

Rick Santorum 40/1

Tim Pawlenty 40/1

Tagged: 2016, mitt romney