June 10, 2005
Analysis of the latest re-redistricting ruling
Rick Hasen reads the federal court decision from yesterday so you don't have to. He has some interesting thoughts on what it all means. Check it out. Thanks to Seth for the tip.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on June 10, 2005 to Killer D's
Just FYI, to give credit where it's due and also let you know that these words came from a credible source, the comments posted about the redistricting decision were written by one of the lead attorneys for the good guys in the case and then cut and pasted into this post. As most of you who follow redustricting know, I was involved in this from the get go and our legal coordinator Gerry Hebert forwarded the identical memo to me late yesterday afternoon.
My bottom-line analysis of yesterday's ruling:
Since the partisan skew resulting from the Pennsylvania gerrymander was worse than the partisan skew resulting from the Texas gerrymander, and since the Supreme Court left the Pennsylvania gerrymander in place anyway, yesterday's opinion says this panel won't overturn the Texas gerrymander for being "too partisan."
My extended take is here.
The ray of sunshine for the Dems is Judge Ward's special concurrence (even though he voted to pour the Dems out). But it's one of those "Mrs. Lincoln's opinion on 'Our American Cousins'" sort of things, I think.
Re Ed's comments above: I dunno if Prof. Hasen had a ghost-writer or not, but I have enormous respect for him and lots of confidence that anything that shows up on his blog is worth reading. I don't disagree with any of his points, but I certainly don't read any of them as giving much reason for the Dems to hope for a different result on their next trip to the Supremes. To have even a prayer of a chance to get the Supremes to do something, the panel would have had to write something incredibly bizarre and stupid, and it didn't. The fat lady sang on this one in January 2004, and we're just listening to the echos bouncing back and forth, folks.