The actions of parties and partisans in the campaign finance arena for the last 20 years or so argues that they will be pushed to more extreme measures in redistricting as well.
The predictable course in campaign finance is for one party to adopt a mcourse of conduct previously assumed to be "beyond the pale" and illegal (think Dukakis raising 100,000 soft money contributions in 1988, national party committees running soft money ads featuring federal candidates (think Clinton's actions in 1996), or 527s created to elect specific party nominees in 2004.
In each instance (and many less visible ones) the reaction of the opposing part was initually to declare the actions illegal, to file legal complaints, and to call on the public to reject the outre behavior. But, in each case, this soon gave way to the reality that the complained of behavior was continuing, and disadvantaging the party which was standing by and merely objecting. Thus, in a classic case of bad money chasing out good, the complaining party would soon be talking about "no unilateral disarmement" and engaging in the same behavior--soon with gusto. Before long, everyone has adjusted to the new status quo, and forgotten it was not ever so.
Given the result maximizing nature of political parties, I see no reason this would not be the likely scenerio is redistricting as well, to the extent mis decade redistricting is within their grasp, if the Supreme Court holds that the Texas scenario is permissible.
Trevor Potter
-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Brad [mailto:BSmith@law.capital.edu]
Sent: Thu Mar 02 00:08:11 2006
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: RE: prediction on congressional redistricting
I think David's got it backwards - in our impassioned hearts, we fear the worst; in our cooler heads, we know that is unlikely to happen.
Brad
________________________________
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of David J. Becker
Sent: Wed 3/1/2006 11:11 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: RE: prediction on congressional redistricting
I think Brad's hopeful argument here is hardly persuasive. The reason this
hasn't happened that often before is because it was rare for legislatures to
switch parties, particularly in the South, where the Democrats were so
entrenched. And contrary to his assertion, we're already seeing it happen
-- Georgia has just passed (and the governor just signed) its latest (among
several) mid-decade redistrictings pushed through by the new GOP majority --
this one splitting Clark County (where the University of Georgia is located,
and which has always elected a Democrat) solely for the purpose of electing
another Republican. This after a voluntary mid-decade redistricting of
Congress. We're seeing an era where we will likely see a switch to one
party control in several states -- to the GOP in states like Alabama (where
the Democrats still control the legislature), and to the Democrats in states
like California (if Schwarzenegger loses) and Pennsylvania (where Democrats
are gaining in the legislature). Indeed, in PA, Democrats win only 37% of
Congressional seats, despite having a Democratic governor, and voting for
the Democratic candidate in the last 4 presidential elections, and if the
Democrats can win control of the legislature (and the Democrats look very
strong this election year there), they could gain at least 3, and maybe as
many as 6 (using the same measure of proportionality used by the TX GOP)
Congressional seats. If the Supreme Court puts its imprimatur upon such
cynical political power grabs, where one party grabs a disproportionate
number of seats while shutting out all dissent and argument from the
minority party and minority (racial) voters and legislators (and one can
hardly conceive of a more blatant display of raw political hubris as
occurred in Texas, particularly when considering the financial
improprieties), as I agree it likely will, I believe Richard is quite right
that we will routinely see mid-decade power grabs of this sort, on both
sides, and the decennial redistrictings will simply be used to set up the
eventual mid-decade power grabs. That's exactly what happened in Texas,
where the GOP, knowing it couldn't redraw the lines as it would like in
2001, ground the redistricting process to a halt, and the legislature had to
abdicate its responsibility to draw a Congressional plan, leading to a
court-drawn plan, which then was used later in the decade as a justification
for the legislature to "correct" the court-drawn plan. In only the last 2-3
years, we've seen it in Georgia, we've seen it in Texas, and this is all
BEFORE the Supreme Court puts its stamp of approval on it. I think we all
hope in our hearts that Brad is right, but I think we all know in our heads
that he's not.
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 Smith, Brad
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 10:23 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: RE: prediction on congressional redistricting
I just think this is not true at all. It never (or at least never to my
knowledge, and I'm comfortable enough with my knowledge to therefore at
least conclude "very rarely") happened before, and even now most states have
shown restraint. I think it unlikely that Richard's horror scenario will
occur, and frankly, if the votes last November in California and Ohio mean
anything, they mean that voters would revolt. It's even one of the factors
hurting Tom DeLay in polls.
Brad Smith
________________________________
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of
ban@richardwinger.com
Sent: Wed 3/1/2006 9:06 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: prediction on congressional redistricting
If the U.S. Supreme Court rules that Texas did not
violate the Constitution when it redrew the boundaries
of congressional districts in 2003 for partisan
reasons, then every time a state transfers power from
one major party to the other in the state executive
and legislative branches, we will see mid-decade
partisan re-redistricting.
For example, I can imagine the North Carolina
legislature redrawing that state's congressional
districts in 2007 (assuming Democrats are in the
majority in 2007; the governorship is not up in 2006
and a Democrat is now governor). In 2004 Democrats
only won 6 of the state's 13 US House seats. Creative
redrawing should be able to get that up to 9 or 10.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein.
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.