SCOTUS And The Texas Redistricting Dispute

In a rare afternoon session on Monday, only a month after accepting the case, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard a Texas redistricting dispute that is complicated in every way except its bottom line: four new congressional seats that have the potential to decide which party controls the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court justices signaled, through their questions to the lawyers arguing the case for each side, that it is unlikely the court will simply allow elections for this cycle to go forward using the state's maps drawn by the legislature last summer, or the interim maps drawn by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio.

It is widely thought that the Justices will vacate the San Antonio court's decision on the interim maps and instead allow the D.C. circuit court three judge panel to answer with finality the Section 5 Voting Rights Act questions on the state's maps drawn by the legislature. All side are impatiently waiting the Supreme Court's decision.

The D.C. circuit court trial starts Jan 17 and will run through the first week of February. This would at least mean another postponement for Texas' primary election, and probably means a bifurcated primary.

In an email to party members this morning, Texas Republican Party Chair Steve Munisteri said that a split primary is looking more likely. Munisteri explained that the state conventions planned by the Texas Democratic and Republican parties are set for June and can't be rescheduled.

"There has to be a primary for at least some races by early April, in order to have the two parties' state conventions," Munisteri wrote. "Cancelling the state conventions is not an option for several reasons. First, the already incurred contractual obligations of the parties would jeopardize the financial health of both parties. Second, it is important that the State of Texas be able to pick delegates to the Republican National Convention so that we can have an impact on the Presidential race....Third, the Texas Election Code requires that we have a state convention. And fourth, we need to have elections for party officers, including State Chairman, Vice-Chairman, National Committeeman and Committeewoman, and the members of the State Republican Executive Committee."

Even if the primary is only delayed until May, instead of June, Munisteri explained that that still would not allow enough time for the Texas Republican Party to properly plan for its June state convention. With few options left, hosting two Texas primaries may end up the only viable solution remaining.

Another change to the primary election schedule will give Texas election officials a genuine headache and Texas tax payers a pain in the wallet. As reported in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

Holding two primaries would likely double the costs to Texas taxpayers, election officials have said. The Texas secretary of state's office reimburses Republican and Democratic parties around the state for much of the expenses related to hosting the primaries. In 2010, the state paid party organizations $13.9 million for primary elections and runoffs, state records show.

Locally, the final election schedule is likely to create logistical and financial issues for the Tarrant County Elections Office. Elections Administrator Steve Raborn has said hosting two primaries could end up costing Tarrant County more than $700,000.

Delaying the primaries until June could also pose problems. Raborn noted that many schools that serve as polling places are likely to be closed or undergoing construction or maintenance over the summer.

Other concerns include finding enough election workers over the summer and potential overlap from the local city and school district elections scheduled for May. Runoffs for those elections are currently scheduled for June.

Either way Texas voters and taxpayers look to lose. All because Texas Republicans couldn't draw fair maps that took into account the state's rich diversity.

Other Republicans Agree Not to Tell Rick Perry Where Next Debate Is

CONCORD, NH (The Borowitz Report)

In a move that they are calling “the only humane thing to do,” the other Republican candidates for President have agreed not to tell Texas governor Rick Perry where the next debate is being held.

The candidates reached the decision after a two-debate weekend in which Mr. Perry put in a performance that, in the words of former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, was “brave, but painful to watch.”

Immediately following the final New Hampshire debate on Sunday morning, an awkward scene unfolded onstage as Mr. Perry asked the other candidates, “So, where is everyone going now?”

“Um, I don’t know, Rick,” said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, looking down at his shoes.

“Isn’t there going to be another debate after this?” Mr. Perry persisted.

“Not that I know of, Rick,” said former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, pretending to text with his phone. “I’ll let you know if I hear anything.”

After Mr. Perry left the stage, Mr. Romney told a reporter that he “felt bad about fibbing to Rick,” but added, “Putting him out there onstage again would just be cruel.”

The Borowitz Report - Satire

For a less tongue in cheek story on Rick Perry read, "Rick Perry Relegated to the Side Stage in the 2-for-1 New Hampshire Debates" by Eileen Smith @ The Texas Observer.

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...