I was not using him as support for my argument, though nice try. I was just stating that it has been appealed and by whom. If it stands then the ppm opposing him will benefit and those losing will claim not fair as well. In this adversarial system, there are always winners and losers and ppm a hundred percent believing others are wrong. Here is the cynical truth. Politicians (Bush, Obama, Abbott, Perry,Reid,etc) say what they know will get them the most votes and do what benefits them the most. They really don't care about the citizens. They care about their paycheck.
JLordTree.The same Texas Attorney General who benefited politically from this and who is running for governor in 2014.
Federal laws and the voting rights act examples only gives authority to rule the redistricting illegal. There is nothing saying to draw boundaries themselves. In fact I would argue the VRA implies opposite by giving examples of preventing elections if boundaries cannot be drawn fairly. Final say and power to decide disputes does not imply in anyway to give a select panel of judges the drawing power.guess we will see as the tx attorney general appealed to the supreme court.
Can you read? I think you are trying to start trouble.
1) Article 3, Section 2 :“power to decide cases arising under the Constitution,” FEDERAL LAWS”. LOOK IT UP.
2) Voting rights Act: Section 2 and Section 5. It is implied in the Voting rights Act that the courts must act as the final say in certain districts. Personally I back the court ruling for many reasons, hopefully it will put an end to GOOD Ole Boys Network in the Victoria and the surrounding areas. Which I think you support.
None of your examples give any constitutional (strict or implied) reinforcement to allowing the judicial branch to draw districts, which has been my sole argument. It covers the settling of dispute over whether boundaries are fair and gives review, but nothing allowing the judges to actually draw. Of course, they can prevent the entire state from voting under provisions in the act.
JLordTree..Have you ever heard of implied powers? In history there was the argument between strict powers and implied powers.
1) Article 3, Section 2 :“power to decide cases arising under the Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and treaties” Key word is Federal Laws. What federal laws you asked? Laws, CONGESS ASK the Judicial branch to help enforced?
2) Voting rights Act: Section 2 and Section 5
3) What Amendment was the Voting Rights Acts enforcing?
Tell me JLordTree? Wait never mind I’ll say it for you. The 15th Amendment: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
In history there was the argument between strict powers and implied powers. You know between Jefferson and Hamilton? If America had taken the strict method, would Thomas Jefferson (the strict constitutionalist) would make the Louisiana Purchase. No he wouldn’t. According that logic of yours, every state across the West of the Mississippi would be illegal, and thus belong to several Indian tribes, Russia, Mexico, Spain, Britain, Canada, and France.
Let me say this before I go, Conservatives and Libertarians need to stop say saying Constitution this and Constitution that when they don’t own it. The American people, as a WHOLE, OWN the founding document and all of the laws under it. It is time for people to educate themselves instead of hollering all the time.
Writein show me in the constitution...u know that document that people like to ignore...where even temporary redistricting can be done by courts? On Gore v. Bush....I was against the court battle then as well as far as deciding a victor. Now deciding the constitutionality of the redistricting is fine, but not actually legislating...even temporary. We have to stop trashing the constitution. Don't like something....amend it.
First of all, the plan is temporary which will last for a year or so. Second the Courts have a right to draw these lines because the legislature have a track record of throwing their own maps back in. Plus according to your logic, AL Gore, not George W. Bush, would have won Florida. Your logic is also similar to President Andrew Jackson’s opinion about the Supreme Court ruling of Indian Removal, when Jackson said, “let them enforce it”.
A redistricting plan must take into account traditional redistricting criteria such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivision lines and communities of interest.
Not seeing a lot of common interest between Victoria and Corpus but maybe that is just me.
Writein you lack understanding my argument. My argument is not the constitutionality of the voting rights act but instead courts drawing boundaries as stated in the article. It is fine for courts to say this violates and send back to the States, but they violate when they legislate. And if roles reversed I would. You don't know me so how dare you question my integrity.
I also find it strange that people are attacking this ruling now when this law had been enforced by the federal government since 1966. I find it odd and amazing. It proves a point that some people want to keep the “Good Ole Boy Network” in Texas.
JlordTree.If the roles were reverse you wouldn’t say a thing. I am not calling you a fool, your question and the lack of understand and knowing the history makes you into a fool. The Voting Rights Act the law is a “federal law” protecting the voting rights of those in the minority. If it is a federal law that implies federal rulings to change a state’s gerrymandering tactics. It is called research my man, research.
The federal courts don't draw boundaries they rule whether they comply with the Voting Rights Acts via the Supreme Court ruling.
I think a Corpus Christi candidate will be better because they have more to choose from and Todd Hunter will not be easy. ..They also have more votes.
I think we are going to see a candidate from further south, and that's okay.
And stirring before you say you fir not call me an idiot....sorry fool....I am referring to the open book comment.
I am not referring to the voting rights act....though because it is a law does not make it constitutional. nice try assuming I'm an idiot. I'm referring under what part of the constitution are the federal courts given power to draw boundaries? Or the federal government in general? The voting rights act does not even address that. It sets guidelines for the boundaries not give authority.
If any person who cannot get the right answers in an open book test than he is a fool. My attention is now on Democratic Chair Kellie Gill. Will she actively recruit a candidate or will she sit back and do nothing?
If it wasn't for Geanie Morrison's HB3015 and George Bush's Iraq War, I wouldn't be on here. :)
You're right Writein, but the answer was in the article and sort of like a open book test.
It's not a done deal but if we remain in a district with Corpus Christi the results are going to be different than what we've been accustomed to. IMO
I'll have to get interested in Texas politics again...:-)
Mike.You know and I know about the Voting Rights Act, but I want people, like JLordTree, to figure it. Let’s take a look at Dewitt, Lavaca, and Jackson counties being removed from the 30th Texas House District. Each county did not favor the current State Rep Geanie Morrison. Even in 2004, her only opposition was from Write-in Candidate David Myers from Lavaca County. Each of those counties were also spilt up and added to three different districts.
Close enough writein,46 years 1965 Voting Rights Actwhich stated.
The federal constraints that have been imposed on the redistricting process include:
A redistricting plan must create districts that are relatively equal in population A redistricting plan must not dilute the strength of minority voters A redistricting plan must not be a “racial gerrymander” A redistricting plan must take into account traditional redistricting criteria such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivision lines and communities of interest
Look it up for yourself. I do not see why is it not. The ruling is based on a 50 year old law.
so can anyone tell me how this is constitutional?
Special Interest Queen--interesting title Writein. I know this: Geanie Morrison is nowhere near a conservative--she loves to spend money!
I'm really hoping those folks south will have a solid Dem candidate to challenge Hunter and Morrison. I'm ready to see Morrison retire.
Republicans don't care about anyone but themselves and will step on anyone who stands in their way on their pursuit of greed it you let them. Have to agree with roberttx 100%.
Riverboat,while it's true that the Dems shouldn't complain but under the old gerrymandered district,they didn't have a chance running against an well financed incumbent,in a conservative district....They made a wise choice,now that they are playing on a level playing field they probably will run a qualified candidate from Corpus Christi.
Morrison has done little in her time at the capitol. It's past time for a change. And I am a republican.
I have add on to what I said. Victoria Republcian Chair Michael Cloud should look in the mirror when it comes to special interest . Geanie Morrison is a special interest queen. She is the queen of HB3015, Education commission, Mayor Willie’s “dreams”, water district enforcement, and the UHV name change.
If you think I am being easy on the local Democrats especially the leadership, then you are mistaken. You are right as rain about the Democrats. I view Democrats as “punks” since they can’t even recruit a solid candidate for the past ten years.
im 100% for voting out morrison
same for republican state supreme court, get those soulless bums off the bench
Let me also add this. The chickens are coming home to roost. State Rep. Morrison have won election after election without being oppose. I do find it funny that three counties in her district were removed. These three counties are the least favorable to her. I don’t hear Mr. Easton talking about that.
Maybe you should read your history book. It was the Federal Government who protected the rights of minorities from southern state governments.
I bet if this was the other way around you would praise it.
Alton, you'd be singing the praises of the feds if this were two Dems intead of two republicans, wouldn't you?
Maybe, just maybe, we can finally say goodbye to Morrison.
Looks like the federal government is determined to kill the rights of the states.