Supremes toss San Antonio district court maps
This solves one problem but creates a slew of others, starting with the most obvious: which maps will be used? The Legislature’s maps haven’t been pre-cleared by the D.C. court. The San Antonio district court’s maps were incinerated by the Supremes, who ordered the San Antonio judges to draw new ones, without offering any apparent guidance, except to respect the Legislature’s right to make policy choices. And then there are the questions of filing deadlines and dates for primary elections and runoffs, which will almost certainly have to be moved yet again.
Here is the gist of the Supreme Court’s ruling, as reported in the Washington Post:
“To the extent the [federal] District Court exceeded its mission to draw interim maps that do not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, and substituted its own concept of ‘the collective public good’ for the Texas Legislature’s determination of which policies serve ‘the interests of the citizens of Texas,’ the [district] court erred,” said the Supreme Court ruling Friday.
Where do we go from here? This much is clear: About all there is left for the San Antonio district court to do is tweak the legislative and congressional maps. There will be no major changes. Congressional District 23 will probably get some more attention, according to an attorney who is familiar with the case.
The question that I have always had about the House redistricting map is why it failed to take into account the huge Latino population gains. The answer is that much of that growth did not occur among the voting age population. The Hispanic population is young, due to high birth rates, and also includes many non-citizens in urban areas, who are ineligible to register to vote. They live here, but they cannot be counted in a way that swells the ranks of Latino voters.
As I wrote in an earlier post on this subject, the 2011 redistricting will be the last to be controlled by Republicans (unless the GOP is smart enough to do Hispanic outreach, instead of trying to suppress Latino voting). During the next census cycle, the young Hispanic population will be ten years older and will enter the voting age population. 2021 is when Texas politics will truly change as Latino growth shifts the balance of power away from not only Anglos but also African Americans. The clock is ticking.
Anonymous says:
Supreme Court decision affirms the point that courts should uphold laws and not legislate!
Reply »
GDBLSTX Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 2:20 am
I agree laws like the Voting Rights Act.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 10:47 am
All courts legislate, including the Supreme Court. The Supremes just didn’t like the way the San Antonio Court legislated.
Reply »
Russ Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 2:53 pm
How about this idea? The legislature draw maps that meets the standards the VRA sets, and show the courts we have enough sense to follow the law.
Reply »
Just Another Joe says:
Republicans will be done by 2021…yet another bold prediction from Paul Burka that we can take to the bank and place in the safety deposit box right next to the likes of Perry will win the nomination for President and that Republicans peaked too soon in 2010. Remind me again, Paul, how many Ds did you lable being in good shape in the last general election who later packed up their offices?
Look, you are right. R’s have some work to do. But it is not the near impossible task that you (and other liberal media types) paint. By in large, the hispanic culture agrees with the Republican party on many issues, such as our free market stance, emphasis on the role that religion plays in our lives, low taxes and limited government.
Where we lose them (and where we subsequently need to alter the strategy) is to take the tone of intolerance and hate out of the immigration debate. It is possible to have a healty coversation on the issue of legal versus illegal immigration without so deeply offending the hispanic population and without ignoring the fact that non-citizens pay taxes in Texas, too.
You listening Berman, Riddle, et. al?
Reply »
anita Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
And Perry, too.
Remember, he had a “heart” — until he met the heartless GOP primary voters, and he checked his heart at the door and threw the next generation of Hispanics to cold winds of political expediency.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 11:27 am
Maybe Perry had a “heart,” maybe he didn’t. But GOP primary voters gave him the boot because of a lack of a brain.
Reply »
habiibah Reply:
August 27th, 2012 at 10:07 am
how many district court have in mauritius
Reply »
Blue Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 9:11 am
I’m trying to figure out how the Republicans go from overwhelming dominance to not being able to control redistricting nine years from now. It’s just a crazy proposition. By 2031, sure, its possible. But there ain’t no way the Texas house shifts that many seats in four elections
Reply »
W. B. Travis Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 9:47 am
Not only will young Hispanics become more politically involved and begin to vote but old right wing conservatives will be dying off.
Reply »
Pat Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Blue, a year or so ago I believe Steve Murdock (or possibly somebody else) gave a presentation in which he tried to put a date on the “Blue Line” after which Republicans could say Sayonara to their House majority due to hostile demographics. He used the House as his example because with more compact districts, its exponentially harder to gerrymander than the Senate.
Murdock put the date in mid-2017.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 7:10 am
The “Blue Line” is a Census term describing the dividing line between city and non-city addresses. I’m willing to accept that 2017 is when the rurals finally lose control. That’s not the same as the Republicans losing control.
There is absolutely no way, none, that the Democrats have a majority in the Texas House in three sessions.
paulburka Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 10:53 am
I did not say, and do not believe, that the Democrats will have a majority by 2021. I said that the 2011 redistricting will be the last that is controlled by Republicans. Look at how hard it was for them to control it this year. Add 10 years of Hispanic VAP growth and then try to control it.
Reply »
Redistricting Insider says:
The three judge panel can comply with the Supreme Court order by drawing interim maps that look exactly like the legislative approved maps, with slight tinkering in the 5 House district and 2 Congressional districts that DOJ has identified as problematic under Section 5. The Senate map should look exactly like what the legislature passed because DOJ had no objections.
Reply »
anita Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Better yet, Perry could call a special and the Lege could adjust the lines, submit to DOJ for preclearance.
He won’t — because he’s not interested in moving us all forward. We’re in a “war” with Washington, in terminal campaign mode.
The redistricting maps from the Lege were an overreach, pure and simple. All of this is completely unnecessary.
Reply »
Anuta Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 8:27 am
you want to move us all forward? Then respect the will of the legislature and stop trying to overrule the will of the people from the bench
Reply »
anita Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Sounds like the ghosts of Governors Wallace and Faubus. They just wanted the pesky feds to stay out of their business, wanted their Legislative acts and “the will of the people” to be respected. Sorry, but we have a federal Constitution that respects the rights of individuals, including the right to vote.
Blue Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 9:08 am
An overreach??? An OVERREACH is a panel of judges trying to make a Republican state have 3 of 4 new congressional seats be Democratic.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 2:38 pm
not when that population growth is a largely democratic demographic.
anita Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 4:04 am
Yes, an overreach. Even the State’s hand-picked venue, the DC Circuit, agreed.
Johnbernardbooks says:
“For the record, SCOTUS order redistricting plaintiffs to pay the State of Texas $18,884.41 for court costs.” from Lichael Li
SCOTUS is telling the SA Court to closely adhere to the lege maps.
Atty Gen Abbott is asking the Court to finish by 1/30.
Face it dems you lost. If you want to legislate you have to win elections not do it from the bench.
Reply »
WUSRPH Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 9:59 pm
It will be kind of hard to finish by Jan. 30 when the Court says it will hold its first hearing on Feb. 1st.
Reply »
"Red Dirt & Sand," blog. says:
It will cost the state many times more than Perry’s campaign. We will have primaries closer to Summer than Spring, my opinion. Hopefully no one is even considering a split primary.
Reply »
trowaman says:
CD-33: What does the court ruling mean for this district?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 11:20 am
My guess is it’s in peril because there are no guidelines on minority coalition districts. Same with HD107 in Dallas which I’ll be upset about since I live there.
Reply »
"Red Dirt & Sand," blog. says:
We will have primaries eventually. The sooner it is solved is the best for the state.
Reply »
nix says:
I don’t really see how the demographics change because the hispanics don’t vote….
Haven’t yet. Probably won’t.
Reply »
longleaf says:
What nix said. You don’t even have to suppress the vote. It is wishful thinking of those who are not far right-wingers to think that this state is moving anywhere other than FARTHER to the right.
This will go on for many, many years until finally there is another moment at which a governor threatens secession, but this time follows through with it.
Reply »
anita says:
But if we secede, Perry can’t run for president again. So for at least the next 4 years, we’re in the Union.
Face it, on every issue, we’re going to be drawn into stalemate after stalemate, gridlock with Washington. We all lose in this game. We need a governor who will put Texas’ interests before his personal political interests.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 7:19 am
“Face it, on every issue, we’re going to be drawn into stalemate after stalemate,”
Thats the dem strategy, by suing every bill the lege put out.
Judge Spark’s ill advised decision was corrected by a 3 judge panel, and he was pubically reprimanded by Justice Jones his boss.
Justice Orlando Garcia and Sis-N-Law ill advised decision was deemed “illegal” by SCOTUS their bosses.
Next we’re going after US Atty Holder and his ill advised blocking of the Voter-ID Bill.
Face it dems we’re a nation of laws, not of men.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 11:34 am
What was most shocking about that was how extreme SCOTUS thought Garcia and Sis-in-law’s map was. Even Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg didn’t object to the per curiam decision. How extreme was the SA court’s map when those radical liberals thought the map went too far?
Reply »
Blue Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 7:15 am
Yep.
Gen. Sam Houston says:
Setting the status conference for Feb. 1 was a ballsy move by the 3-judge panel. It reeked of defiance. Instead of getting the maps done this week, as the Attorney General and at least one political party wanted, the court said, “Okay, we’ll begin talking about this in ten days, and there’s a lot to talk about.” That’s a guarantee the primary election will NOT be held in April, as both parties had previously agreed.
We’re fast heading for a situation where neither party can hold their conventions in June (goodbye deposits), where national delegates can’t be selected in time, where Texans have no voice in Presidential primary process.
The Supreme Court clearly instructed three judges to defer to legislature, make some adjustments, not draw new maps. The three judges are in no hurry to comply. I wouldn’t be surprised to see further “instructions” from Supreme Court next week.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 9:06 am
Yep. Only end game that makes sense if the SA court defies like this is for the USSC to impose the Lege maps and declare them legal under VRA.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The losers here are the citizens of Texas. Chalk another one up to the overwhelmingly GOP 2011 Texas Legislature.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 11:37 am
You think it’s losing when the PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATIVES get to draw their own maps and then have those maps defended in court? How out of touch are liberals??? My God!
I guess they think we just shouldn’t have elections at this point.
Reply »
Jed Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 2:32 pm
ding.
Reply »
"Red Dirt & Sand," blog. says:
There are no maps that will satisfy the majority of the legislature except the gerrymandered ones they drew. Unfortunately they will likely repeat the process again next year. It would be nice to get something agreed upon as far as districts for this election so we can plan for primaries and state conventions.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
The Republican party is really cruising for a bruising. They crow so much about Christian morals and family values … then they dial in with this.
I am ready to – figuratively speaking – torch and burn the Republican party. The fact they are even considering Gingrich says it all.
FOX News Op-Ed
“Newt Gingrich’s three marriages mean he might make a strong president — really”
By Dr. Keith Ablow
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/20/newt-gingrichs-three-marriages-mean-might-make-strong-president-really/
Former Speaker of the House and Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was attacked Thursday in an interview on ABC News by his second wife Marianne. She accused him of beginning an affair with his current wife Callista while Marianne and he were still married (which Mr. Gingrich admits). She also accused him of lobbying her for an open marriage that would allow him to continue seeing Callista without getting divorced (a claim Gingrich denies).
Well, in any case, no open marriage was in the offing, and the Speaker married his current and third wife.
As I have written before for Fox News Opinion, I don’t think voters belong in a candidate’s bedroom. But the media can’t seem to help itself from trying to castrate candidates for the prurient pleasure of the public.
I will tell you what Mr. Gingrich’s personal history actually means for those of us who want to right the economy, see our neighbors and friends go back to work, promote freedom here and abroad and defeat the growing threat posed by Iran and other evil regimes.
First, one note on what Mr. Gingrich’s married life, including his history of infidelity does not mean: It does not mean that Mr. Gingrich would be unfaithful to the United States of America or the Constitution of the United States.
You can take any moral position you like about men and women who cheat while married, but there simply is no correlation, whatsoever—from a psychological perspective—between whether they can remain true to their wedding vows and whether they can remain true to the Oath of Office.
I want to be coldly analytical, not moralize, here. I want to tell you what Mr. Gingrich’s behavior could mean for the country, not for the future of his current marriage. So, here’s what one interested in making America stronger can reasonably conclude—psychologically—from Mr. Gingrich’s behavior during his three marriages:
1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.
2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.
3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.
Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.
4) Two women—Mr. Gingrich’s first two wives—have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation.
Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.
5) Mr. Gingrich’s daughters from his first marriage are among his most vigorous supporters. They obviously adore him and respect him and feel grateful for the kind of father he was.
When I want to know who in a marriage (or, for that matter, a series of marriages) is the one who actually was aligned with their best interests, I never dismiss evidence of who the children gravitate toward and admire. In this case, they have judged the father who left their family, then remarried twice. And they judge him 10 out of 10. I only hope my own children love me and respect me as much when they are adults.
So, as far as I can tell, judging from the psychological data, we have only one real risk to America from his marital history if Newt Gingrich were to become president: We would need to worry that another nation, perhaps a little younger than ours, would be so taken by Mr. Gingrich that it would seduce him into marrying it and becoming its president. And I think that is exceedingly unlikely.
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 1:32 pm
I need to get one of those gigs where I get paid handsomely to write the kind of drivel “Dr. Ablow” produces, and Robert Morrow reprints.
Reply »
Fiftycal says:
So you think the dims can keep hispanic voters on the “plantation”, er, barrio? Think again. Most hispanics are interested in the AMERICAN dream, not sitting around and living on the crumbs the elite dims throw them. Texas doesn’t pay the exorbitant “welfare” that Kalipornia does and we won’t. And as more generations of hispanics grow up and assimilate, the more conservative they will become. No matter what the elite socialists try and pass.
Reply »
Mr. Smith says:
Fiftycal. You’re right that the Democrats won’t do anything to keep hispanic voters voting for Democrats. Its the Republicans that are doing that. You are exactly right that many hispanics are interested in the American dream, and value hard work over entitlements. But they also watch TV, and see many of your clients and what they say about a border wall, and rounding them all up and sending them home, and arresting everybody and checking their citizenship status (many of them understand that your buddies aren’t talking about pulling over Ms. Highland Park after an afternoon at Neimans). As inept as the Texas Democratic Party is, you just have too many JBBs voting in the upcoming Tea Party Primary to not ensure Burka’s prediction.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Pitiful logic. Conservatives don’t oppose immigration. We oppose ILLEGAL immigration. See the difference? No, of course you won’t. It’s the meme you live by. And lies told often enough get believed.
I’m with Newt. There should be some kind of document for long term illegals, that registers them, keeps them from EVER getting any government benefits and allows them to work. And a “guest worker” program that is simple and workable. The green card system seems to work well in Texas. There are many thousands of foreign workers that are here LEGALLY. And they return home about 3 months out of the year. It’s the ILLEGALS that can’t leave anymore. They may not be able to get back in. And the LEGAL immigrants are all in favor of stopping ILLEGAL immigration.
Reply »
Mr. Smith Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Blah blah blah, oppose ilegal immigration. When you’re explaining, dummy, you’re losing. And I thought you were smarter than that, fiftycal. Please keep on keeping on, Obi Wan Kenobi, your the Democratic Party’s only hope.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 6:44 pm
Obviously a government skool graduate. Google the difference between “your” and “you’re” some time. Or would that harm your self-esteem?
Mr. Smith Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 7:11 pm
When you are explaining, you are losing. Wow. And I wondered where you had been for the last six months. Now we know. Writing Rick Perry’s debate prep.
Mr. Smith Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 9:07 pm
gaaa. Didn’t look at the last you are. Got me on grammar, fiftycal. But it is true that YOU ARE the democratic party’s only hope.
"Red Dirt & Sand," blog. says:
So we have 11 days to have acceptable maps. This process is near not over.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
The Religious Right won Iowa. Rockefeller Republicans won New Hampshire. And the psychopaths have won South Carolina.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 11:40 am
So Rob, what group do you fall into? I’m leaning toward the latter.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Well, Republican Party – thank-you very much:
From Public Policy:
Just a reminder we found Obama 47 Newt 45 this week…in Texas…tonight very good news for the Pres: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/perrys-standing-diminished-in-texas.html
Obama beating Newt would be FINE with me.
Reply »
InTheShale says:
I last worked on statewide campaigns in Texas in 1990. The conventional wisdom then was that the Republicans could never do any better, since the Hispanic population growth thereafter would render the Rs irrelevant. We are still waiting for that to happen I suppose.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Lew Rockwell: “Murderers for Jesus Win in SC”
Posted on January 21, 2012 by Lew Rockwell
According to CNN:
Gingrich 41%
Romney 27%
Santorum 17%
Paul 13%
“These figures will change, but SC primaries have never been a good for champions of peace and capitalism. The SC Republican party is the home of Lindsey Graham, after all. And warmonger Gingrich got $5 million from a multi-billionaire who is also the chief funder of a foreign pro-war politician and political party. In any event, Ron will do 4-5 times better than he did last time, and will rally all the good people in America around him for the future, in an all-out, hard-fought, long-term effort. This campaign is just getting going, especially in the caucus states. The Ron Paul movement as well has only begun.”
Reply »
anonymouse2 Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:02 am
Robert,
Has anyone ever called you tiresome?
No, don’t answer that. We don’t have time.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
I found a GREAT web site on Newt Gingrich: http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm
Just a sampler:
Quotes:
“We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, ‘I never slept with her.’” – Anne Manning (who was also married at the time.)
“We would have won in 1974 if we could have kept him out of the office, screwing her [a young volunteer] on the desk.” – Dot Crews, his campaign scheduler at the time
[In the book] “Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them”, [I] “found frightening pieces that related to my own life.” – Newt.
“I think you can write a psychological profile of me that says I found a way to immerse my insecurities in a cause large enough to justify whatever I wanted it to.” – Newt, speaking to Gail Sheehy.
“She isn’t young enough or pretty enough to be the President’s wife. And besides, she has cancer.” – Newt, on his first wife.
“He treats me really nicely, buys me all these ices. Dolce & Gabbana, Fendi and that Donna, Karan, he be sharin’ All that money got me wearin’” — Callista? No wait, that’s Fergie, “My Humps”
“I don’t want him to be president and I don’t think he should be.” – Newt’s second wife Marianne.
“She [Callista] is the single most self-centered person I’ve run into in politics—it’s all about her. They do these movies together, and she does a word count: she has to have the same number of words on camera as he does or they have to reshoot. …And Callista did not want him to run for President. That’s why he had to buy her so much damn jewelry.” – an unnamed “former strategist.” Will Rogers, Newt’s ex-Iowa strategist has denied it was him.
“If the country today were to move to the left, Newt would sense it before it started happening and lead the way.” – Dot Crews, his campaign scheduler throughout the 1970s.
“It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.” – Newt.
Adultery:
Sex on the Desk – Oral Sex is More Easily Denied
Several newspapers are now reporting that Newt Gingrich is dating and basically living with Callista Bisek, a “willowy blond Congressional aide 23 years his junior.” Biske, 33, has been spending nights at Gingrich’s apartment near the Capitol and has her own key. In an amazing act of hypocrisy, Gingrich was apparently dating Bisek all during Clinton-Lewinsky adultery scandal, even as he proclaimed family values and bitterly criticized the President for his adultery.
Reporters and other Washington insiders have known about this relationship since 1994, even before Gingrich became Speaker of the House, but did not have any solid proof to report. In 1995, Vanity Fair magazine described Bisek as Gingrich’s “frequent breakfast companion.” Gingrich was married to Marianne Gingrich during all of that time, and just filed for divorce in August 1999.
Newt is apparently trying to create a new hybrid form, Christian adultery. According to MSNBC, Bisek sings in the National Shrine Choir, and Newt would often wait for her at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, listening to her sing while he read the Bible.
This is hardly the first time Newt has cheated, either. “It was common knowledge that Newt was involved with other women during his [first] marriage to Jackie. Maybe not on the level of John Kennedy. But he had girlfriends — some serious, some trivial.” — Dot Crews, his campaign scheduler throughout the 70s. One woman, Anne Manning, has come forward and confirmed a relationship with him during the 1976 campaign. “We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, ‘I never slept with her.’”
Kip Carter, his former campaign treasurer, was walking Newt’s daughters back from a football game one day and cut across a driveway where he saw a car. “As I got to the car, I saw Newt in the passenger seat and one of the guys’ wives with her head in his lap going up and down. Newt kind of turned and gave me this little-boy smile. Fortunately, Jackie Sue and Kathy were a lot younger and shorter then.”
Family Values? Pressing Wife for Divorce in the Hospital:
“He walked out in the spring of 1980…. By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said, “Daddy is downstairs. Could he come up?” When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from my surgery.” – Jackie, his first wife. One of Newt’s daughters from that first marriage, who is also a conservative columnist, recently disputed that story (after Newt co-authored a book with her), saying among other things that her mother Jackie had initiated the divorce and that “the tumor [removed in a surgery the day before] was benign.” Of course no one knew the tumor was benign at the time, so I don’t know why that is supposed to matter. And CNN recently found court documents that show that Newt did in fact initiate that divorce. In any case, I’m inclined to believe the wife this happened to over the account of her daughter, who was a child at that time.
Dead-Beat Dad:
The hospital visit wasn’t the end of it, either. Shortly after the cancer ward visit, Newt stopped paying alimony and child support. Jackie had to take Newt to court to get him to contribute for bills, as utilities were about to be cut off.
Draft Dodger:
Though he relentlessly pushes military spending and talks like a bigtime hawk, Gingrich avoided the Vietnam War through a combination of student and family deferments. (He married one of his teachers at age 19.)
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks says:
@Robert
like most liberals you suffer from an addiction to sex, and that is just one of your many mental illnesses.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Like I said before, the religious right won in Iowa, the Rockefeller Republicans won in New Hampshire, and the psychopaths won in South Carolina.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 11:41 am
I’ll say it again. Rob, which group do you fall into? I’m thinking the latter.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 12:18 am
The Ron Paul liberty faction! None of the above.
Robert Morrow says:
Jason Embry of the AAS just wrote an entire article “Perry campaign hurt by internal turmoil” with absolutely NO ONE ON THE RECORD. Based on “more than a half dozen operatives” (unnamed).
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/rick-perry/perry-campaign-hurt-by-internal-turmoil-2116438.html
Is anyone asking “Prove it, prove it, prove it!” ?
I know just how Embry feels, because I have had the *exact* same experience.
It is hard to get whores and prostitutes who have worked intimately with Rick Perry to go on the record.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Yah, especially when all of them live in YOUR head.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Robert, I’m glad I wasn’t the only one thinking Embry’s article was complete bullshit. It was a really transparent attempt to start the rehabilitation process for Perry. The media loves to beat up on Perry, but the lazy Texas media will only go so far because at the end of the day, him staying in power means they can keep their access to him.
Reply »
anon-p says:
The day the San Antonio court maps came out, it was obvious a stay was in the cards. And for the reasons pointed out by SCOTUS: The redrawn maps appeared to be fashioned from whole cloth and did not use the legislature’s as a baseline.
Not that the legislature’s maps were any good. They were terrible and the House committee was warned they were asking for trouble. Straus and Solomons are responsible for this mess more than anybody else.
Not only will we not have a primary in April, it’s quite likely we won’t have one before June. It will blow up the state conventions of both parties and introduce electoral chaos that hasn’t been seen in living memory in Texas.
Thanks, House redistricting experts.
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
Anon P, so Texas primaries will likely start in June because of the constant delay in the state’s redistricting maps ?
That’s embarrassing: this should have been resolved LAST YEAR.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Just another Joe,
2010 was a wave election. By October most people were speculating that the Ds would lose seats. The insiders were saying 6-12, but not many consultants expected 20 seat losses. The size of the wave was underestimated. The same demographic issues in the inner suburbs will be a problem for the GOP in 2012 just as they were in 2006 and 2008. Just speaking for Dallas County if you look at the GOP map for the house HD 105, 107, and 113 are pickups for the Dems in the next 1-2 election cycles.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 11:00 am
Totally agree. We are about to have a mini-wave direction in the other way in 2012. Maybe 10 Demo pick ups?
Reply »
Blue says:
Yes, clearly the Democrats storming back to a mere 90-60 deficit is a miniwave.
Reply »
anita says:
Another note on the press:
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/back-texas-rick-perry-has-relationships-repair/
The Capitol press corps consistently refers to Bill Miller as a “political consultant” — technically true, perhaps. But he is also a lobbyist. The Texas Ethics Commission lists him with over 20 clients, all with significant issues before the Legislature.
If the press corps wants to use him to provide commentary for their articles, they should identify him so that readers can understand his relationship to elected officials, including the Governor.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 11:02 am
Anita, what’s the latest on the renveations of the Governor’s Mansion ?
They’re supposed to be done with them by now and Perry had said, “I want to move back into the Mansion.”
Reply »
JK says:
While redistricting jurisprudence may have evolved to convey the idea that minorities deserve to elect their “candidate of choice” historically this was in a racial context, not a political context. After all, Texas and the deep south were so heavily dominated by Democrats at the time the VRA was passed that party affiliation was not a factor. Since mapping was controlled by Democrats in all states covered by Section 5, VRA-sanctioned redistricting was really intended to enable minorities to displace Anglo Democrats. GOP voters didn’t matter — the few that existed were packed into as few districts as possible, or split between Conservative Democrat districts where the GOP votes could be useful. Because party affiliation was a non-factor, the idea of majority-minority districts took hold as this was the only way to ensure that minorities could defeat Anglo Democrats in the primary. The “candidate of choice” concept really meant “candidate of the right race” since party choice was never in question in the general election — as minorities were already electing Democrats in the general election, VRA would have had no effect if party was all that mattered. As conservatives abandoned the Democratic Party and the GOP grew in Texas and the South, the Democrats had to de-emphasize the racial context of VRA to be replaced by the idea that “candidate of choice” means “candidate (race) AND party of choice”. This became particularly important in Texas as Hispanics began to run for office as Republicans. Hence, we have the ridiculous situation wherein Quico Canseco in CD23 is not the “candidate of choice” among Hispanics, yet he IS a Hispanic and he was elected in a district that is more than 55% CVAP Hispanic. Apparently it is OK to discriminate against Hispanics so long as they are Republicans. And Lewis Carroll would be proud to describe Aaron Pena’s situation…a Hispanic is elected as the minority “candidate of choice”, but ceases to be the “candidate of choice” when he changes parties, even though party affiliation was not a factor at the time the concept of “candidate of choice” was created in the VRA. If the VRA has evolved to the point where it serves primarily to prop up Democrat minorities at the expense of GOP minorities, then it has outlived its purpose and should be retired.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 12:24 am
Very, very well stated.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
I strongly support the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and you’re gonna have African American legislators complain about their districts being wiped off the state map.
Reply »
habiibah Reply:
August 27th, 2012 at 10:02 am
How many district court have in mauritius and where are the district court located in mauritius
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Pena should have asked for a GOP district to win in instead, but he was an idiot for switching parties and is paying for it.
Reply »
habiibah says:
Can i get my answer
Reply »