<x-flowed>Some on the list might be interested in the /amicus curiae/ brief I filed in /Session v. Perry/, the Texas Redistricting Case. The case is now on appeal, and I am disappointed that none of the litigants has responded to the implicit demand by the trial court that rejected the plaintiffs' claims to provide a standard of proof that the 2003 redistricting plan constitutes unconstitutional gerrymandering. All of them seem to be arguing, "We can't define gerrymandering, but we know it when we see it." That won't work. In my /amicus/ brief I *did* provide such a standard of proof (although I didn't call it that). If it comes back on remand, I suppose I will have to file a petition in intervention.

For the brief, http://www.constitution.org/brief/rolandj/session_v_perry_jr_amicus.htm

For more on the topic, http://www.constitution.org/reform/us/tx/redistrict/cnpr.htm


-- Jon

----------------------------------------------------------------
Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions
for donors are at     http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm
Constitution Society      7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
512/374-9585   www.constitution.org  jon.roland@constitution.org
Get your free digital certificate from http://www.thawte.com
----------------------------------------------------------------

</x-flowed>