U.S. Supreme Court On Monday Will Hear Texas Redistricting Arguments

SCOTUS Blog

At 1 p.m. on Monday, the Supreme Court will hold 70 minutes of argument in three cases — being heard on an expedited schedule — on the new election districts that Texas will use in 2012 balloting for the state legislature and for its expanded delegation in Congress. Arguing for the state of Texas, with 30 minutes of time, will be former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, now in private practice in Washington with the Bancroft law firm. He will be followed by Principal Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan, arguing for the federal government as an amicus, with ten minutes. Arguing next, for the challengers to the state legislature’s redistricting maps, with 30 minutes, will be Jose Garza, a private attorney in San Antonio who has been representing the Mexican American Legislative Caucus in these cases.

---

Background

Just as the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling two years ago in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has become a major influence on the financing of the 2012 elections, the Court’s coming decision this Term on three legislative redistricting cases from Texas may have a strong impact on who wins some key election contests — and might even help settle control of the new U.S. House in the Congress that gathers next January. The ruling also may bring a severe test of the constitutionality of America’s most important law on the voting opportunities of minorities, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For a case that could be decided on very narrow grounds, it has developed potentially historic proportions.

Continue reading @ SCOTUS Blog »

But no matter what the Supreme Court justices decide, congressional and legislative maps need to be in place before the preparations for the primary election, now scheduled for April 3, can go forward.

Michael Li's Guide to the Supreme Court Case

Should Any Democrat Call Themself A Ron Paul Supporter?

Some Democrats cheer Ron Paul because of his devastating critique of crony capitalism, his equally trenchant challenge to imperialistic wars and his opposition to the National Defense Authorization Act provisions that pose a threat to our civil liberties. But just because Ron Paul opposes crony capitalism, imperialist interventions in foreign countries and government over reach doesn’t mean he has a liberal or progressive bone in his body.

Summer Ludwig at the excellent blog Addicting Info says:

As anyone with a blog, YouTube account, MySpace page, or web site knows Ron Paul supporters are everywhere! The internet is filled with them. The frightening thing that I have witnessed is that many liberal voters are giving some credence to Ron Paul’s campaign and message. He somehow comes across as different or better than the run of the mill conservatives filling the Republican ticket.

I do not support Ron Paul in ANY and I find his Congressional record and policies to be, at times, even scarier than his counterparts. The only thing that I have found to agree with him on is the fact that he does not support the war in Iraq. After extensive research I have compiled a list of 10 reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul!

1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.
2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights [by supporting government regulation over women's reproductive decisions and health services]
   
3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class.
4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.
5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.
6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations.
7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to GLBT citizens.
8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns.
9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system.
10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state.

Read the detailed explanation of each of these 10 points at Addicting Info.

As Ted McLaughlin writes of these 10 points at his excellent jobsanger blog:

But after studying the list for a while, I had to admit to myself that this list would be a good one for ANY of the Republican candidates this year. I initially had some doubts about a couple of the reasons -- numbers 6 and 8. There is no doubt that foreign policy under Ron Paul would be radically different than under the other Republican candidates, since he is an isolationist (and that is a ludicrous idea in this modern world). But all of the others would re-institute the Bush foreign policy, which was an abject failure and had even our friends angry with us. Truly, the foreign policy of any of the Republican candidates would create a negative image for the United States on the world stage.

That list is a good one, and it provides some very valid reasons for not voting for Ron Paul. But it also provides some valid reasons for not voting for any of the Republican candidates. A Republican vote in 2012 is a vote for national disaster.

The Nation: Three Myths About Ron Paul - Civil libertarians and non-interventionists on both the right and left are praising Paul, but they should know his views are wrong on more than economics:

In general, Paul’s commitment is only to limiting federal power, not proactively protecting individual rights. Paul is adamantly opposed to federal protections of civil rights from states or private enterprises. Paul says the Americans with Disabilities Act “should never have been passed,” because “it’s an intrusion into private property rights.” He even says he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If Congress passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to ban discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation, Paul would presumably veto it.

Paul also opposes abortion rights and says he wants Roe v. Wade repealed so the issue can be decided by the states.

Since the foundation of the Supreme Court's Roe decision is the court's 1965 fundamental right of privacy Griswold v. Connecticut decision, Paul presumably wants that court decision repealed, too. In Griswold v. Connecticut the court found state laws forbidding the sale, purchase and use of books and products for the purpose of birth control were unconstitutional.

Finally, as Ta-Nehisi Coates, a senior editor for The Atlantic, writes: Paul’s "Shaggy Defense" of his newsletters — which have garnered attention for their racist passages — is at best questionable.

More...

AARP: Can We Still Vote?

AARP: Many older Americans will not be allowed to vote this year.
by Marsha Mercer

The midwife at the 1949 home birth in rural South Carolina delivered a healthy baby girl but didn't file a birth certificate. Donna Jean Suggs grew up, got a Social Security card and found work as a home health aide. Try as she might, though, she couldn't get a birth certificate. That meant she couldn't get a driver's license or register to vote.

"I fought with them and fought with them," she said of the local and state officials. "I prayed and prayed." In time, said Suggs, 62, who lives in Sumter, S.C., "I gave up on things" — like voting.

Having a driver's license or photo identification card is commonplace for most Americans, but about 11 percent of adult citizens — more than 21 million people — lack a valid, government-issued photo ID, according to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.

Increasingly, this puts their right to vote at risk. A year ago, only Georgia and Indiana required photo ID cards to vote. Since then, 34 states have introduced voter ID laws. Five enacted them, governors in five other states vetoed them, and other states are considering them.

"What's new is the no-photo-no-vote" laws, said Jennie Bowser, a senior fellow specializing in elections at the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures. "The 2010 elections' big shift toward Republican control of state legislatures was certainly a piece of that."

Older voters most affected

The trend alarms voting advocates like Lawrence Norden, acting director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program, who said photo ID laws hit older people, the poor, African Americans and students the hardest. "This is the first time in decades that we have seen a reversal in what has been a steady expansion of voting rights in the United States," Norden said. "There's no question that citizens over 65 will be particularly impacted. The older you get, the more likely you won't have an ID."

Nearly one in five citizens over 65 — about 8 million — lacks a current, government-issued photo ID, a 2006 Brennan Center study found. Most people prove their eligibility to vote with a driver's license, but people over 65 often give up their license and don't replace it with the state-issued ID that some states offer non-driving residents. People over 65 also are more likely to lack birth certificates because they were born before recording births was standard procedure.

Strict new photo ID laws could make voting this year more difficult for 3.2 million voters in Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin, if the new laws stand, according to the Brennan Center.

Voter Registration Cards On Hold Until High Courts Draw Redistricting Lines

If you are a registered voter with an expired [voter registration] card, then you will not receive a new one until the courts decide on how the Texas congressional and state house lines will be drawn. [County election officials may also have to wait until the U.S. Dept. of Justice, and possibly the federal courts rule on Texas' new voter photo ID law.]

“A lot of voters are calling because their cards are expired,” Kristi Allyn, Taylor County Elections Administrator, said. All Texas voter registration cards expired at the end of 2011.

Usually, election officials mail out new cards [in December], but this year, things are a little different. “We will be sending out new cards, we’re not sure when,” Allyn said.

Election offices across the state are on hold until the redistricting limbo is all settled. “We’re just waiting at this point to see what districts we’ll have to put on the cards,” Allyn explained.

Full Article: Voter Registration Cards On Hold Until High Courts Draw Redistricting Lines – Abilene News Story – KTXS Abilene.