I don't know if this is what Mark means, but using vote totals from the
Texas Sec'y of State's website, GOP candidates for the US House in 2002
(just before the re-redistricting, but after the redistricting subsequent to
the 2000 Census) took 53.3% of the overall vote for US House. That would
amount to almost exactly 17 of the 32 seats in Texas. The re-redistricting
drew 21 GOP seats, or 65.5% of the overall delegation -- over 12% (and 4
seats) more than the evidence suggests is the will of the people of Texas,
at the time the plan was drawn.
Personally, I tend to agree that voluntary mid-decade redistricting should
be presumptively unconstitutional unless it is done to remedy some other
constitutional or statutory (Voting Rights Act, etc.) violation. The error
built into the decennial census data after about 3-4 years is just too great
to fully comply with one-person, one-vote.
David J. Becker
Election Consultant and Voting Rights Attorney
(202) 550-3470
(202) 521-4040 fax
david.j.becker@electionconsulting.com
www.electionconsulting.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry,
Mark
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 6:32 PM
To: election-law
Subject: RE: timing in Texas cases
In response to the suggestion that perhaps mid-decade redistricting done
solely for partisan purposes should be held to violate the Constitution:
What if the motivation for a mid-decade redistricting is to correct for a
prior partisan redistricting? Suppose that 60% of a state's voters vote for
Republican House candidates but that the redistricting scheme adopted after
the last census results in Republicans winning only 40% of the state's House
seats. If a mid-decade redistricting changes the way the districts tilt, so
that Republicans win, say, 65% of the state's House races with 60% of the
popular vote, the new districts would seem to provide a closer fit to the
popular will. Should such a mid-decade redistricting, designed to correct
for the prior partisan redistricting, be vulnerable to the charge that it
was done only for a partisan purpose?
Perhaps someone has the statistics that would indicate whether the
mid-decade Texas redistricting resulted in a better fit, or a worse fit,
with popular will (as I've used that concept above).
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
-----Original Message-----
From: adam morse [mailto:ahmorse@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 11:47 AM
To: Rick Hasen
Cc: election-law
Subject: Re: timing in Texas cases
At the risk of reading too much into the tea leaves, the timing
decisions strike me as a very good sign for the plaintiffs (and for
those of us who want teeth in judicial review of partisan
gerrymandering). If Justice Kennedy decided to side with the
nonjusticiable view, there would be no hurry to hear the cases.
Expediting review only makes sense if there is a concern about redoing
the districts in time for this election, and that only makes sense if
the plaintiffs are likely to win. So my guess is that the delay was
about either Kennedy or Roberts wrestling with the case, and that one
of them decided that he was likely to side with the Vieth dissenters.
Of course, this could just be wishful thinking on my part, and the
timing may simply indicate that the Court does not want to foreclose
relief this election, even with the expectation that they will
ultimately vote to deny relief. But I'm even more optomistic based on
the timing orders than I would be anyway.
All that said, we could easily get a narrow "partisan purpose can't be
the ONLY motivation for redistricting" decision that would only really
bite at midterm redistricting. But that would still be a step
forward.
Adam Morse