DOJ’s unpreclearance
Critics of the Justice Department’s refusal to grant preclearance to the Texas House and congressional redistricting maps will no doubt attribute DOJ’s action to politics. And no doubt politics had something to do with it. But I never thought that DOJ would approve a map that ignored the demographic facts, which this map does. Virtually ALL of the growth in Texas’s population in the last decade is attributable to Hispanic growth. How can the state defend a map that does not respond to this reality? How can Texas gain four seats in Congress and none of them be Hispanic seats? This is a travesty. The map overreaches in its creators’ desire to send second-rate Republican legislators to Washington. Mike Jackson? Randy Weber? Give me a break. Sam Rayburn is turning over in his grave.
Tagged: DOJ, preclearance, redistricting maps, texas redistricting
Anonymous says:
are there any other kind in texas??
Reply »
Dave Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 10:45 am
Third rate?
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
What’s wrong with the GOP doing what we Dems did for years with members of the Texas Senate?—”Kick them upstairs where they can’t hurt you!”
Reply »
Brewer says:
Except the Texas Senators have such a sweet deal than none of the competent ones have run for Congress in decades. Just Mike Jackson, Eddie Bernice Johnson, et al.
Reply »
Christopher Landrum says:
The map for Travis county looks not unlike the quadranting off of Berlin after WWII?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Berlin_Blockade-map.svg
Reply »
paulburka says:
We’re behind the cactus curtain.
Reply »
Tx Constitution says:
But Paul…one thing you are missing is the population growth from Hispanics was not concentrated in one area of the state. Hispanics are no longer required to live in certain barrios….they are in the inner city and the suburbs. So how do expect to draw maps which reflect this reality? You can’t!
Reply »
AreYouKiddingMe says:
You can draw a map that reflects the sentiment of the area these people are representing, not one that cuts in and out of areas to assure a Republican victory. That is the difference. No one in their right mind could look at these maps and believe that nothing more than politics influenced them. No rhyme or reason other than electing Republicans. Sad…
Reply »
anon-p says:
The question is, is it possible to draw the maps in such a way that a) doesn’t allegedly disenfranchise Hispanic voters, b) is compact and contiguous, c) isn’t terribly patronizing of Hispanic voters, and d) reasonably anticipates the next ten years of Hispanic population patterns without falling into the trap of assuming the last two or three represent a long term trend in any one area.
I’m not sure it’s possible to draw a map that meets all these criteria.
Reply »
Jed Reply:
September 21st, 2011 at 12:51 pm
really?
i bet i can take redistricting program, and give it ONLY the instruction to draw compact & contiguous districts, and it would produce more minority opportunity districts – essentially randomly – than the one we have now.
not only would it be easy to do, you actually have to try real hard to eff it up this bad.
which of course is exactly what happened.
and here’s my real point: i think you know this to be true, anon-p. so cut the crap.
Reply »
Pat Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 11:38 am
Have to agree with Jed. Yes, hispanic populations have shifted, but the bulk of hispanic population growth has reinforced and expanded existing communities. The idea that hispanic population growth was uniquely dispersed throughout Texas out of line with historical patterns, and therefore made it difficult to draw a legally-adequate map, is total and complete nonsense.
Reply »
Jose Lopez Portillo says:
Why are there not more opportunities to elelct more hispanics? Easy. Take away all the illegal hispanics out of the equation and you have your answer. They aren’t registered, they don’t vote but they show up in the census data.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
They do vote! If you ask GOPers…that’s why Voter ID is vital to saving the state.
Reply »
Tim Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
You are in for a rude awakening in less than a decade.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
I don’t see Democrats winning back the Texas Governor’s Mansion and the other down-ballot statewide offices until 2018 at best.
On the legislature, the TX House of Representatives could fall to Democratic hands by 2020 and the State Senate until 2030.
Reply »
Another Wilco Voter says:
I assumed that the growth of Hispanics didn’t translate to Hispanic voters simply because much of the growth is in the under-21 population not old enough to vote. This will not be the case at the next census.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I don’t believe even native Texans of Hispanic origin will ever vote in sufficient numbers to influence much of anything, particularly when the voter suppression strategy ramps up to an even greater intensity. It is not a secret that there is one party that wants large numbers of people to vote and another that does not. The party that does not is in control and will suppress the vote to keep it that way along with hacking the touchscreens. You have to be pretty naive to believe in honest elections. This is becoming a banana republic which doesn’t have the climate to grow bananas, although recent warming trends may make that possible eventually.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Bananas need RAIN. Hello.
Reply »
Tim says:
There’s a reason why Republicans have spent the past decade+ installing Republican judges at every level of the judicial system. They realized a long time ago that if you buy a judge you don’t have to convince the electorate. You can just marginalize the parts you don’t like.
Reply »
U232 says:
Burka: “How can Texas gain four seats in Congress and none of them be Hispanic seats?”
None of them? Really? How about CD 34 (RGV), or the much derided CD 35 which is a Hispanic Opportunity District that will result in Congressman Joaquin Castro over Doggett.
Naaa, no none of the four seats gained are Hispanic seats.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 21st, 2011 at 9:39 am
Pretty much equals zero new hispanic seats when you alter Canseco’s and Farenthold’s seats which were VRA districts to make them more Republican. So you drew two hispanic seats and took away two VRA protected seats and renumbered them.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Isn’t it “racist” to gerrymander districts in an attempt to elect a black, Hispanic or “white” person. Also aren’t there a lot of folks with “mixed blood” in them? A lot of Hispanic Cubans would have a lot of black in them.
Many “blacks” have some white ancestors in them.
So isn’t this whole process a farce.
How about gerrymandering a district to have an attractive brunette with big boobs representing it. Seems a much more noble goal than what we are seeing now.
Also, some blacks, like Barack Obama don’t have any “slave” blood in them. In fact Obama has “slave holder” blood in him. So why should “slave holder” blood blacks be acceptable as an elected representative in “black” districts?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Robert you have to know by now democrats only see people by skin color, gender or sexual orientation. They are easier to divide that way.
Isn’t that what democrats want diversity?
Reply »
un ratón de niñera says:
jbb prefers to think of all dems as only thinking in one way, they are easier to pigeonhole that way. strawman *poof*
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 21st, 2011 at 12:06 pm
ever met a rational or logical thinking dem? Neither have I.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
You’re a Nazi
Reply »
Debate Competitions says:
Heya i am for the first time here. I found this board and I find It truly helpful & it helped me out a lot. I hope to provide something back and help others such as you helped me.
Reply »