Burnt Orange Report

Jim D,

I read through some of that same coverage, and Dr. Alford seemed to feel that it was inherently unfair for one party to get 70% of the seats with (potentially) only 50% of the vote. Hmmm, kind of like in the 1992 election, when the Dems only got 50% of the votes but won seventy percent of the seats ... oh, wait, never mind. That was a *democratic* gerrymander. Those are inherently good and righteous and pure maps that are models of how to draw district lines, and we should use them as the basis of all future district lines in Texas. It is only when the maps allow the GOP to win two thirds of the seats (with, incidentally, 56-58% of the vote that they recieved in the last election, not the 50% the Dems did in '92) that a map is inherently flawed and the courts must throw it out :)

Sherk

First, has Jim D ever said that the 1991 gerrymander wasn't flawed? You're strongly implying that he did.

Second, the Republicans *did* challenge the map several times. Sometimes they won. Sometimes they didn't. The gerrymandering was addressed: 15 districts were redrawn in '94, '95 and '00.

Third, are you saying that you support this gerrymandering because of past gerrymandering? I consistently see an absence in many conservative posters of the gerrymandering, sometimes, like your post, avoiding it altogether by talking about another situation.

Finally, read Alford's words more closely: He said that the 2001 map favored the Republicans, but they failed to take advantage of it. This is, in fact, what many of us have been saying all along.

Tx Bubba,

Well, Jim didn't explicitly state that he supported the '91 Gerrymander, but given that the court used almost the same map for the current district lines, simply adding in the two new seats, I just sort of assumed that since he likes the current lines, he must not have had a problem with the '91 lines. And yes, there were voting rights act problems with those lines, and minor corrections to the districts were drawn. Still, the bulk of the map was kept intact.

I am not saying that I support this gerrymander because of past gerrymanders. I support maps that disproportionately benefit conservatives, and oppose those district lines that disproportionately favor left-wing candidates. Nothing in past or present maps alters that.

What I am saying is that, given that the current map is a continuation of the '91 gerrymander, with minimal changes to add two seats -- indeed, a map drawn explicitly by the judges to protect incumbents -- it is a tad hypocritical to scream bloody murder at the GOP for gerrymandering when the current map represents a partisan Democratic gerrymander. It would be more consistent to admit that what bothers you is the fact the Dems will lose a lot of seats, not that the lines were re-drawn in a partisan fashion.

As for the 2001 map favoring the GOP, granted, with a bit more effort we could have beat Stenholm and Edwards, who both won by four or five points, and there are crossover voters who re-elect Stenholm and Hall in highly GOP districts. Sure, some Republicans are splitting their votes to elect Democrats. But even with the crossover votes, even after Republicans voted to re-elect Democratic incumbents, the GOP recieved 56-58% or so of the vote for House seats, but only won 47% of the seats.

Seriously, TX Bubba, these lines aren't some model of fairness. Even had we knocked off Stenholm and Edwards, and gotten a 17-15 edge, instead of vice versa, that still wouldn't represent the strong GOP voting patterns of current Texas. Now, the new lines aren't fair either, but they at least represent Texas's conservative bent, much as you might not like that.

Sherk

There is a Myth that the 2001 Court drawn map for ETx Congressional Seats simply keeps in place the previous map drawn by Democrats.

This is absolutely untrue as testified by the person who drew the maps on behalf of the Republicans that were presented to the Court in 2001. The same Dr. Alford of Rice testified at the field hearings conducted around the state( one of which I attended and heard his testimony).

He testified that he drew a "least change" map on behalf of Cornyn and submitted it to the Court, but that map was rejected. The map eventually selected was also prepared by Dr. Alford, who testified that there were several other maps presented to the Court with much less derivation from the then existing Dem v. Rep split. He testified that the map he drew and which ultimately was selected was a pro Republican map, which was expected to result in at least 5 more Republican seats (the 2 new ones, and three more).

So, the author of the 2001 map, an expert hired by the Republicans, an expert in the field, has testified under oath in 2001 and 2003 that the 2001 map was NOT a "least" change map intended to keep in effect Democratic advantages.

What I am saying is that, given that the current map is a continuation of the '91 gerrymander, with minimal changes to add two seats -- indeed, a map drawn explicitly by the judges to protect incumbents

Interesting that Republican judges draw maps to favor Democrats.

If 15 districts have been redrawn since 1991, that does not consitute a continuation.

-- it is a tad hypocritical to scream bloody murder at the GOP for gerrymandering when the current map represents a partisan Democratic gerrymander.

And it is hypocritical for Republicans who complained about gerrymandering to gerrymander.

It would be more consistent to admit that what bothers you is the fact the Dems will lose a lot of seats, not that the lines were re-drawn in a partisan fashion.

You are (or were) one of the few reasonable conservatives, but you're out of line on this one. If you could check from my earliest posts on these site on this topic, I have said just the opposite, that conservatives should be in the majority. So, don't presume, and lay off trying to pretend to know what I "really" think.

What bothers me is in fact that the majority of Texans did not support redistricting, that there is gerrymandering going on, that someone outside the Texas legislature (Delay) is pushing this effort, that the redistricting subordinates rural interests to urban ones like in East Texas, and that we're breaking with precedent to redistrict just because a particular set of elections didn't go the way Republicans expected. These things bother me far more than a loss of seats of Democrats.

I support maps that disproportionately benefit conservatives

At least, you are honest about your lack of interest in democracy.

left-wing candidates

Oh yeah, those crazy left-wing wackos Ralph Hall and Stenholm. I'm glad to see that you're following Newt's lessons. This is where Republicans are so full of it. The people in these districts elect candidates that are largely conservative, thereby representing those districts. Values aren't important to the Republicans: It's the party affiliation.

As Alford says, "the system itself determines the outcome, rather than the will of the voters."

Republicans have learned well from the PRI and the Soviet Union. As you admitted, the party is more important than the people.

"So, don't presume, and lay off trying to pretend to know what I "really" think."

TX Bubba,

Sorry to offend you, but I was referring to TX Democrats upset about the remap in general with that comment, not you in particular, though I was responding to your post when I wrote that, so I apologize for the confusion.

Look, what I mostly object to is people who had no problem with the '91 re-map, or the '01 Georgia and Maryland maps for that matter, getting so worked up about the Texas map. For years the GOP has been on the short end of the stick when it comes to redistricting, and I do feel a sense of poetic justice that it is now coming back to bite the Democrats, and Martin Frost in particular. If you opposed Dem gerrymanders in principle, then my critique doesn't apply to you, but I think it does to a lot of your fellow Democrats. For the same reason, I don't think it is intrinsically unjust that the Dems redistricted GA to look like a picasso painting -- though I was quite glad to see us win two of the "Democratic" seats.

As for the left wingers, granted, Hall is a very solid Rep. If I were in his district, I would probably vote to re-elect him unless he were running against a clone of Ron Paul or Jeff Flake. Stenholm is, from time to time, conservative, although when push comes to shove, he usually sides with the Dem. leadership on close votes. But Doggett, Martin Frost, etc.? I think left wing is accurate. But that is besides the point -- virtually all the Dems who would be set to lose in the new map, except perhaps Hall, would be less conservative than the Republicans who replace them, so they would be the more "left wing" candidates losing. That is what I meant.

"At least, you are honest about your lack of interest in democracy."

Would anyone lose their right to vote in this plan? No. A district that is competitive in Nov. is no more or less "democratic" (small "d") than that which is most competitive in the primary. Everyone has an equal vote. Look, Democracy doesn't mean that you have the right to decide the election, or that you have a right to a competitive election in the first place. If that were the case, my democratic rights were trampled upon by Sen. Levin's landslide victory last year over State Rep. Andy Whatshisname. No, Democracy means that you are allowed to vote except under extreme circumstances (like being insane, or in jail) and that your vote counts as much as anyone else's. Being in a competitive district can be fun -- Rep. Mike "111 vote landslide (in 2000)" Rogers represents me in Michigan -- but it isn't a fundamental right.

Additionally, if you are so concerned about Democracy and competitive elections, you should have a real problem with the courts drawing the map to protect incumbents to preserve congressional seniority -- which the court said it used as a chief critieria in the current Texas map. So it might not have been the "least change" map, Whome?, but it was drawn to protect incumbents currently in office, 17 of whom are Democrats elected because of the '91 Gerrymander. I fail to see how it is somehow righteous and just to protect incumbents from competitive elections, but a violation of all that is moral and good to draw maps that endanger their election.

All that said, I am mostly concerned with electing candidates who believe in limited government, a strong national defense, and the right to life. While the GOP has been dissapointing me on the first, they still do a much better job at these than the Dems do, so I support acting within the system to do what is possible to maximize the number of conservative candidates elected to office. Although Byron hates this re-map, he wrote in an earlier post that he opposed ditching the NY City partisan labels because that would result in fewer liberals being elected in the city. My reasoning is the similar for supporting the remap.

Is it pragmatic? Yes. Would we live in a better world if partisan gerrymanders were illegal? Perhaps, although I don't see how you can take the politics out of redistricting. I will be upset if the SCOTUS strikes down the PA map, since it benefits us, but in a perfect world maybe we would be better off without them. The difficulty I have is that it seems that many states with "non-partisan panels" seem to draw maps that favor incumbent protection, witness AZ and NJ, which isn't any better than partisan gerrymanders, its just that both sides are getting in on the action. As long as gerrymanders are legal, though, I don't see why Republicans shouldn't take maximum advantage of the legal tools at our disposal to increase the number of conservatives elected to office. Democrats have for years. Unilateral surrender is just stupid.

Sherk

Shrek(lich),

The 2001 map was NOT drawn to reelect Democrats. It's author was Dr. Alford hired by Republican, then AG, Cornyn to draw pro-Republican maps. The AUTHOR of the map stated that it as INTENDED to send more Republicans to DC. (And it almost did - Edwards and Stenholm only won by ca. 6,500 votes each)

The problem is that despite the fact that 5 Districts have statewide index voting patterns of 55-75% Republican, the voters of these districts continue to send Democrats to DC. (Hall, Stenholm, Edwards, Turner, & Sandlin) For example, Ralph Hall's seat is more Republican than Dick Armey's seat was. The Republicans already have majorities of voters in 20 of the 32 districts, the problem is that they still cannot win even with such majorities.

As to the argument that "the Dems did it so should be able to as well" - the courts (rightfully so) curbed any excesses of the 1990 process. Likewise the courts should step in this time as well.

Sherk,

Apology accepted. I thought it out of tone for you.

As long as gerrymanders are legal

But they aren't.

As for protecting incumbents, ask voters if they would rather have a senior, conservative Democrat who protects local interests, such as a local military base, or a newbie Republican. It's one of the reasons I oppose term limits, as do others.

Again, I go back to the public hearings in which a majority of Texans opposed redistricting. If people were feeling truly disenfranchised, they would be more supportive.

Republicans have failed to determine the "root cause" of the problem for Republican candidates. If you know how to debug or troubleshoot problems, you see that the Republican explanation fails.

As WhoMe? repeated, Republicans have an advantage in 66% of the districts. The criticisms are stemming from one political race, ignoring data from all other races in those districts. Since the results in that one race doesn't match general voting percentages, Republicans are concluding falsely that the cause is gerrymandering that favors Democrats. If that were truly the case, we would see it in other races in those districts.

virtually all the Dems who would be set to lose in the new map, except perhaps Hall, would be less conservative than the Republicans who replace them, so they would be the more "left wing" candidates losing. That is what I meant.

It's inaccurate. It's like when I heard Limbaugh refer to George H.W. Bush as "liberal."

This discussion of the earlier maps is enlightening, but utterly irrelevant to the lawsuit underway. Unlike Colorado, Texas has no restriction requiring redistricting ONLY every ten years. Therefore, the only question is whether the new map is legitimate. That question depends on whether the redistricting was done for partisan (okay) or for racial (not ok) reasons.

If the Democrat lawyers can convince the judges that the Republicans drew up the map while saying "Let's draw districts that will dilute minority voting strength" and not "Let's draw districts that will elect more Republicans", more power to them. But that's obviously a long row to hoe.

Republicans could grab a majority of the seats, he predicted, if the party would campaign effectively against Democratic incumbents elected in districts with large numbers of crossover Republicans.

This is a red herring, which can be illustrated by putting it in racial terms: "Minorities could grab a majority of the seats, he predicted, if the minorities would campaign effectively against Anglo incumbents elected in districts with large numbers of crossover minorities."

The interesting thing is, the minority rights advocates are hoist on their own petard: the Voting Rights Act laid down the precedent that the theoretical distribution of voters, as illustrated above, is insufficient. The districts themselves must produce the desired outcome in terms of minority representation. The same will apply to Republican representation. Similarly, the equation of minority = Democrat works against them: any time an attempt is made to show a district drawn against minorities, it can immediately be restated as being drawn against Democrats - only implicitly against minorities, insofar as they are overwhelmingly Democrat.

The bottom line is, if you are to redraw a map to undo a 17/15 gerrymander which favors a 43% party, you simply cannot do it without impacting some of those Democrats, of whatever color.

Therefore, the only question is whether the new map is legitimate. - MH

That is certainly a question, but not the only one. If that becomes the only question, we can expect endless ongoing redestricting battles in every state in the nation, and not all of them will favor Republicans. Indeed, demographics trending as they are, such battles won't even favor Republicans in Texas in a decade or so.

Gerrymandering is at the very least ugly, and frequently dangerous to its perpetrators, as both parties have found at different times. But gerrymandering is sometimes illegal, and that is the question here. The law decides questions of intent all the time, and there is enough evidence that this latest map was drawn with the intent of fragmenting or otherwise reducing the voting impact of racial minorities that the outcome of this case is by no means cut and dried.

This is a red herring... - MH

As my thesis adviser used to say, not hardly. When respected metrics strongly indicate a district is solidly Republican, but that district sends a Democrat to Congress not just once but on an ongoing basis, that's a pretty compelling argument that Republican congressional candidates are simply not making their case to typically Republican voters. Want more seats? Campaign more effectively, and stop tinkering with the works.

The bottom line is, if you are to redraw a map to undo a 17/15 gerrymander which favors a 43% party, you simply cannot do it without impacting some of those Democrats, of whatever color. - MH

Ah, yes, the classic majoritarian argument for racism. "We didn't mean to disenfranchise Blacks and Hispanics, honest, Ma, it just happened while we were dicking Democrats!" Tell me a different lie, please; I'm bored with that one.

Lani Guinier has said, and I concur (I'm paraphrasing), that everyone has a right to vote for someone who is actually elected and represents them. There are electoral systems, districts, etc. under which that can in fact be accomplished. Then there's this most recent map...

this latest map was drawn with the intent of fragmenting or otherwise reducing the voting impact of racial minorities

You can seriously charge that the "intent" was not for partisan Republican gain, but overtly to disfranchise minorities? Really? They got in a room and said, not "draw districts for more Republicans", but said "Draw districts to weaken minority votes"? Um...counterintuitive, to say the least.

Want more seats? Campaign more effectively

Again: "Minorities: want more seats? Campaign more effectively!" Think that would fly with the Voting Rights Act?

Ah, yes, the classic majoritarian argument for racism. "We didn't mean to disenfranchise Blacks and Hispanics, honest, Ma, it just happened while we were dicking Democrats!"

Ah, yes, outcome-based claims of "institutionalized" racism. Please, let's not bring any complexity in causation to the issue, the phantom of correlation suits our partisan agenda just fine.

everyone has a right to vote for someone who is actually elected and represents them

And, in Texas, in 2003, those who are most disfranchised are the 58% who cast their votes for Republican Congressional candidates, only to have the resulting delegation be just 47% Republican.

As my thesis adviser used to say

As my grampa used to say, I'm impressed. Gee, why didn't you say up front that you were a PhD, I would never have dared to rebut you.

First of all, as I've noted before, two facts are not in dispute here:

1) The 2001 court-ordered map kept most of the 1992 Democratic gerrymander in place.

2) Despite receiving a minority of the overall congressional vote, Democratic candidates still receive a majority of House seats.

This being the case, it takes some GALL to claim that these districts favor Republicans. If they did favor Republicans, we would expect that there would be more people voting Democratic, yet a lesser proportion of Democratic House seats. The opposite, obviously, is the case.

And furthermore, it's kind of stupid to cite Alford as defending his own map. Now I know Doctor Alford (I took his statistics course at Rice), and while I like the guy, he is, in fact, the laziest professor I have ever known in my entire life. Given that the 2001 map was a virtual photocopy of most of the 1992 map, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it worked against Republicans.

Let me spell it out for those of you who persist in feigning ignorance: The Democrats gave themselves more competitive districts in the 1992 map. This means more districts where the Democrat/Republican split is around 50/50. Then they created a whole slue of districts where Republicans are crammed in, and Republican candidates win super-majorities.

What does this lead to, class? A NET DEMOCRATIC BENEFIT. Since more people vote Republican than Democratic, a system where Democrats were crammed into districts would produce FAR fewer Democratic House seats. Those districts that are competitive, even those which may lean slightly Republican, can be taken by Democrats. The Democrats left themselves, then, with more districts where they were competitive than they had any right to given voting patterns.

That is, after all, what a gerrymander is. It means squeezing your opposition into districts. In the case of Texas Democrats, this meant cramming Republicans as much as possible while using the incumbency advantage to retain competitive districts.

The 2001 map, then, wasn't equitable by any stretch of the imagination. It's Democrats who need to get over this and understand that emerging political forces will assert themselves. They won't simply roll over to a gerrymander from 1992.

You can seriously charge that the "intent" was not for partisan Republican gain, but overtly to disfranchise minorities? Really? They got in a room and said, not "draw districts for more Republicans", but said "Draw districts to weaken minority votes"? Um...counterintuitive, to say the least.

No, they didn't have to say that, at least not in those words. Plenty of code-words exist. But yes, by now, after decades of observation, I believe the intent is there to disenfranchise minorities, because of a perception by Republicans (correct or incorrect) that minorities vote for Democrats. Counterintuitive? only to R's. You could try offering something worthwhile to minorities on their own issues, something to make them vote your way; then you wouldn't have all these legal questions about whether the intent of your gerrymander was partisan or racial.

Ah, yes, outcome-based claims of "institutionalized" racism. Please, let's not bring any complexity in causation to the issue, the phantom of correlation suits our partisan agenda just fine.

"Outcome-based" is a dirty word in your vocabulary, not mine. Your phrase "Democrats, of whatever color" is the clue here: if color were not the issue, you would feel no need to say that. If the correlation were a "phantom," you would feel no need to reference it. Republicans can spend all their days explaining how this particular correlation is not causal, and still not persuade anyone who is not already a true GOP believer... I recall something about looking like ducks and quacking like ducks.

As my grampa used to say, I'm impressed. Gee, why didn't you say up front that you were a PhD, I would never have dared to rebut you.

Did I miss it when you butted me the first time? :-)

Sorry, but I have only a Masters. Years after I graduated, I started on a second one in a different field, but found quickly that a man cannot serve two Masters. :-) Neither Masters was in anything related to politics. Your grampa was absolutely right: my education has no direct bearing on our debate, nor did I pretend it did. I hope you're not too disappointed that your opponent is not as highly credentialed as you imagined. But really, how else could I have phrased it? "As someone on the faculty of an institution of higher learning used to say"? "As some anonymous person used to say"? I find the phrase "not hardly" amusing and emphatic, and my thesis adviser... that's what he was in my life; there's no getting around it... used to say it often.

Owen, you may want to take a page from Mark's book, or even from mine. We are by turns serious, snarky, angry, sarcastic and unapologetically partisan... but we don't call our opponents "stupid" and condescend to them as if they were children. Your positions may be worth reading in their own right, but it's rather hard to get to them through all the insults. As my grandma used to say, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. (As I used to reply, why do you want to catch flies, Grandma?)

Steve Bates,

Owen, you may want to take a page from Mark's book, or even from mine. We are by turns serious, snarky, angry, sarcastic and unapologetically partisan... but we don't call our opponents "stupid" and condescend to them as if they were children.

First off, I didn't call anybody stupid. I said that citing Alford defending his own map was a stupid tactic. That's not a fine distinction, and so I'd say it is you who is sinking to low debate tactics. Don't misquote me under any circumstances, and certainly don't do so while trying to lecture me about tact. Hypocrisy doesn't begin to describe it.

As for the condescension, I think it is valid in this case. Certain myths are being repeated here that I have already debunked (i.e. 'Republican judges approved the map,' when two of the three judges were Democrats), and certain facts are being willfully ignored (that most Texans vote for Republican House candidates). At some point, that becomes less than tolerable, and my patience begins to wear thin.

Besides, the snarky sarcasm employed by many here is no worse than my 'lesson' as posted above. I don't see why it merits singling out.