well, no one said this blog was fair and balanced, oops, wait you did...expect the lawsuit.
Everyone has an angle as does "off the kuff". Pass the salt.

Did Tom DeLay say that or did Baghdad Bob?

Actually, Charles, the three-judge panel that approved the current US districts was made up of two Democrats and one Republican, not the other way around.

In light of that, what DeLay said wasn't amusing in the least. The current US House districts do, in fact, benefit Democrats.

Remind me, though: was it a split decision? Also, given the accepted guidelines for drawing districts, was there any other way for the court-drawn maps to come out?

Mark,

Remind me, though: was it a split decision?

I don't believe so. The plan probably would have been even worse if it had been.

Also, given the accepted guidelines for drawing districts, was there any other way for the court-drawn maps to come out?

Of course. There was no need to protect incumbents and keep most of the old district lines, which was a transparent attempt to maintain the Democratic majority. Redistricting involves a great deal of lee-way -- that's pretty much indisputable.

Owen....

Something no one has satisfactorily explained to me is what is wrong with districts voting 70% for Perry and still electing a Democrat to Congress. Is there some veiled insinuation the voters are too stupid to realize how they are supposed to vote?

Charles,

Look, over 56% of Texans voted for Republicans in the 2002 US House elections, although a minority of US House members from Texas are Republicans. The district lines clearly benefit Democrats. Most of the lines from the ultra-gerrymandered 1991 plan, in fact, are still in place.

You can rant all you want about how a district votes in another election (an election which, I might add, Perry won by double digits) but two facts will always remain:

1) A majority of Texans have voted for Republican US House candidates for the past several elections.

2) The 2001 redistricting plan protected incumbents by keeping most of the old district lines. The 17/15 Democratic/Republican split was predicted by virtually all political analysts.

These things being true, can you frankly argue that the current district lines do not favor Democrats? How do you explain the fact that everyone -- including the Houston Chronicle -- predicted the 17/15 split?

Owen

But it does matter, and matter a great deal, that Perry could carry a district won by a Democrat. The problem is that the Republicans cannot put up candidates that can beat the Dem incumbrent even in districts that lean Republican. Delay wants to be able to run a dead squirrel and win the seat. Thats not good for democracy. And, yes, I stipulate that its not good for democracy to have any party have gerrymandered seats.

"Look, over 56% of Texans voted for Republicans in the 2002 US House elections, although a minority of US House members from Texas are Republicans"

Then either go to proportional representation, or do what Ohio did and use a non-partisian board to draw up the districts. Replacing the current set up with a Republican gerrymandered one (one that I have consitantly seen predictions of a 19-21 seat Republican majority - far more than their 56% would justify) isn't about fairness or democracy or anything like that: its just politics of a particualary cut throat variety. There is no moral high ground to be had.

Kevin,

But it does matter, and matter a great deal, that Perry could carry a district won by a Democrat. The problem is that the Republicans cannot put up candidates that can beat the Dem incumbrent even in districts that lean Republican.

A majority of voters in the state vote for Republican candidates in several elections, and you claim that it's the GOP's fault that it can't get a majority of seats? I don't know what's so difficult to understand, here. The current district lines benefit Democrats. Almost every political analyst in the state predicted the 17 seat Democratic majority in the Texas US House delegation when the redistricting plan was released.

Are Democrats too stubborn to accept this, or is this just run of the mill political dishonesty?

Then either go to proportional representation, or do what Ohio did and use a non-partisian board to draw up the districts.

I never argued for proportional representation; I provided evidence that a Democratic gerrymander is currently in place. I'm sick of Democrats not understanding the difference.

As to non-partisan boards, I'd say that's a misnomer. I don't think a truly non-partisan board is possible, frankly. Even so-called 'independents' have their own political leanings and preferences that muck up the process. By handing over redistricting to an un-elected board, we'll just be guaranteeing less fairness and zero accountability. The current process is cutthroat, yes, but the cure you propose is worse than the disease.

"I never argued for proportional representation; I provided evidence that a Democratic gerrymander is currently in place. I'm sick of Democrats not understanding the difference."

Then what you are arguing is that a Republican gerrymnader is superior to a Democratic gerrymander, despite the fact that it has been shown that Republican candidates can do well in supposedly Democratic lock districts. I think you would see where someone who is not a Republican would not find it convincing.

The bit about prediciting a 17-15 split is kinda weak evidence,in my opinion, becasue it was largley a prediction that incumbents would win. If the Democrats ran, say, Wellstone in those districts, I really doubt that the results would be the same. There is a difference between "safe for the incumbent" and "safe for a dead squirrel running as a Democrat".

"Are Democrats too stubborn to accept this, or is this just run of the mill political dishonesty"

Are Republicans just too stubborn to accept the fact that the incumbent Democrats win districts that vote Republican in national and state elections, or is that just run of the mill political dishonesty? I am not interested in trading insults. If thats what you want, then this will be my last comment on the subject.

"I don't think a truly non-partisan board is possible, frankly"

Unless there is something I am not aware of, it worked rather well in Ohio. Gerrymandering is worth getting rid of - its a disgrace that there are only about 50 contested seats in the normal House elections. It is simply the largest problem facing our democracy, in my opinion. If the Republicans were proposing something like a non-partisian board or proportional representation, I would be behind them. But they are not.

Owen,

What the heck does statewide election percentage have to do with anything? If a strong republican candidate in one race gets 95% of the vote and weak candidates in two others get 40% each, you say that two of the three seats should be given to republicans since as a whole republicans got almost 60% of the vote overall.

Clearly, it's possible to get such a result where each district is comprised of 50% R and 50% D.

Of course, it's also possible that such a result would stem from gerrymandered districts. But that would be a big ASSumption, and is demonstrably wrong given the strength of other statewide republican candidates in districts where democrats won congressional seats.

Kevin,

[W]hat you are arguing is that a Republican gerrymnader [sic] is superior to a Democratic gerrymander, despite the fact that it has been shown that Republican candidates can do well in supposedly Democratic lock districts.

I think that the GOP can and ought to tilt the districts in its direction; Republicans have a majority, and they ought to use it to expand their political power. That's the way the process works -- that tug of war -- and its a perfectly valid political process with ample public input.

I also dispute the idea that Republicans can do well overall in the state. The nature of a gerrymander is that one party is packed into districts while more competitive districts left to the other. Accordingly, simply showing that Republicans can do well in certain districts isn't enough; you need to show that the overall district lines don't work against Republicans. The evidence, however, shows that they do.

The bit about prediciting a 17-15 split is kinda weak evidence,in my opinion, becasue it was largley a prediction that incumbents would win.

It was a prediction that incumbents would win based on the fact that it protected incumbents, most of whom were Democrats. It kept the majority of the old district lines from the 1991 Democratic gerrymander, lines which squeezed Republicans and aided Democrats. That much shouldn't be difficult to understand.

Unless there is something I am not aware of, it worked rather well in Ohio.

Be honest... Have you really been keeping up with redistricting in Ohio? According to fairvote.org, the legislature still controls Congressional redistricting in Ohio, and of course there is still gerrymandering. There is a 'State Apportionment Board' for legislative districts, but it's controlled by Republicans.

I think you might have really been referring to Iowa, which does have a nonpartisan redistricting board. They supposedly keep it so by restricting the board's ability to use voter registration and voting history information, which strips them of data that would be needed for an effective gerrymander. It is purported to allow for more competitive districts and fewer protected incumbents (which screws with seniority in their congressional delegation, I'd guess).

However, the nonpartisan board only draws the maps. The legislature still has to pass a map, and the governor can veto the plan. Republicans controlled redistricting in the legislature, and today Iowa has four Republicans and one Democrat. Perhaps the process wasn't tilted against Democrats, but I'm not betting on it.

Dan,

What the heck does statewide election percentage have to do with anything? If a strong republican candidate in one race gets 95% of the vote and weak candidates in two others get 40% each, you say that two of the three seats should be given to republicans since as a whole republicans got almost 60% of the vote overall.

That's the way gerrymandering works. Republicans are squeezed into districts where they're guaranteed to win, leaving more competitive districts for Democrats to vy for than they really deserve. Gerrymandering is all about reducing the political strength of the opposing party by squeezing them in.

What you are describing, then, is a Democratic gerrymander!

Of course, it's also possible that such a result would stem from gerrymandered districts. But that would be a big ASSumption, and is demonstrably wrong given the strength of other statewide republican candidates in districts where democrats won congressional seats.

Pointing to a statewide race where the GOP candidate won by 18 points isn't good evidence. Neither is a presidential election where the former governor was running. If you could point to narrow victories for Republicans, or even losses, that would be something. If you could point to voter registration, or polling data, or something of that kind, that would also be something. However, races where Republicans won a supermajority overall are NOT compelling.

In the end, the fact will always remain that most of the 1991 Democratic gerrymander is still in place. The fact will always remain that the plan protected the 17 seat Democratic majority. Everyone predicted that. You can't get around it, no matter how hard you try.

Owen: you seem to be consistently missing an important point. The Democrats that would be forced out under the Republican gerrymander (ie, the white Democratic Congressmen) are all in districts that lean Republican. In other elections (local, state, presidential), these districts go for Republicans. If you're in a district that consistently votes 60% Republican in most elections except for the House, how is it then the case that this district is based on an unfair gerrymander that favors Democrats?

sorry, that last post was mine.

Mark,

Owen: you seem to be consistently missing an important point. The Democrats that would be forced out under the Republican gerrymander (ie, the white Democratic Congressmen) are all in districts that lean Republican.

All of them?! Give me proof of that... I know that a few, especially Hall's district, do go Republican in at least some elections (usually those where GOP candidates won by super-majorities overall), but you're just exagerrating by claiming that all of them are in Republican-leaning districts. Most of them are merely competitive (roughly half and half) which makes the Democratic incumbency advantage enough to retain the seat. Add to that the fact that Republicans are more likely to be squeezed into districts, and you have severe evidence of a Democratic gerrymander.

Besides, if these districts were overwhelmingly Republican, then analysts wouldn't have predicted a 17/15 split. Neither would it be the case that Republicans CONSISTENTLY get a majority of the overall vote while recieving a minority of seats in the US House delegation. How do you explain that? Give it up, man... The districts benefit Democrats. Period.