Rob Booth is off the redistricting reservation:
I’ve got to say this is getting a little nuts. The last two maps from Sen. Staples (1324 and 1325) have really messed up west Houston. Putting CD 7 into any county other than Harris is wrong, no matter what the goal. And any version of CD 7 that doesn’t include the old Taco Bell on Memorial near Kirkwood is a travesty. You see, that was the Culberson for Congress headquarters, from which a bunch of us busted our butts to get John Culberson in the Congress representing Harris County.
I guess that the driving force behind these maps is the belief that we can jettison the 2/3rds rule during a second special session. That’s making these map-drawers get as bold as Rep. Frost in 91. I’ll just put it down in writing, what I’ve been thinking. We lost by the 2/3rds rule for many years. We should win by the 2/3rds rule as well. And we ought not draw maps with the only purpose being to increase the number of Republicans.
I’ll repeat something I’ve said before: It didn’t have to be this way. If redistricting had been on the menu from the beginning, if there had been an honest effort to draw reasonable lines rather than play the maximalist game (funny how no one seems to spout the 56% rationale anymore amidst all these maps that are designed to give Republicans somewhere between 62 and 68% of the seats, no?) along with statewide hearings that actually paid attention to the feedback received, I think the GOP could have increased its body count to 18 or 19 without much of this fuss. I wouldn’t have liked it, but I’d have been hard-pressed to argue against it.
I think the GOP leadership, having committed to taking whatever action it deems necessary to achieve the result it wants, is finding that they’re out on a limb. The rank and file isn’t rallying to support them, while the opposition is united and the media is unimpressed. I’ve got to wonder if any of them are starting to ask if this is really worth it. (Answer: apparently not.)
Let’s assume that there is another special session as seems likely, and that there is no blocker bill. Given that every single Republican-drawn map has generated opposition from Republican senators whose districts are carved up in that particular map, can anyone say with assurance that the Senate actually will pass something on a straight majority vote? Do these guys really want to risk being held responsible for what might happen in a joint House-Senate committee? Maybe they will, I don’t know. The question is, do Perry and Dewhurst?
The longer this drags on, the more I become convinced that whatever the outcome, the Democrats will get more out of the experience than the Republicans will.
Thanks for the link. I’m still all for increasing the number of Republicans, I’ll be fine living in Wilson’s new district (easier to get to the national convention), and I’m willing to tolerate a bunch for the sake of the team. But, they can’t take the Taco Bell!
I guess that’s a NIMBY attitude. I don’t have any excuse for that, but it is my yard, dang it.
Oh yes, the map they passed, I think here is better as concerns west Houston. It includes the Taco Bell. I’m still against dropping the blocker bill. That’ll come back and bite us limited-government types at some point.
no one seems to spout the 56% rationale anymore amidst all these maps that are designed to give Republicans somewhere between 62 and 68% of the seats, no?)
I agree it would be foolish to overreach. The whole issue is contingent on the inequity of the current districting, and we need to show we are merely seeking fairness, not the sort of gerrymandering the Democrats have been inflicting for 130 years or so.
But, if Democrats want the 56% maps instead of the 62/68% ones, they’d better cash in their chips now, before the next session without the 2/3 requirement.
Redistricting will happen, and not seven years from now. Better than running to Oklahoma, the Dems should take Clayton Williams’s advice from a few years back.
I agree it would be foolish to overreach. The whole issue is contingent on the inequity of the current districting, and we need to show we are merely seeking fairness, not the sort of gerrymandering the Democrats have been inflicting for 130 years or so.
It’s way too late for that. Unless there’s a sudden groundswell of support for the Wentworth or Armbrister plans, the GOP has not been making a pitch for fairness. The time for that was from the get-go.
But, if Democrats want the 56% maps instead of the 62/68% ones, they’d better cash in their chips now, before the next session without the 2/3 requirement.
What chips? They’ve been rolled all session in the House, and the Senate is poised to take away the one weapon they have at their disposal. Their only real tactic is unity and stalling, and hoping the issue makes trouble for the other guys (which so far it has).
Redistricting will happen, and not seven years from now. Better than running to Oklahoma, the Dems should take Clayton Williams’s advice from a few years back.
You’re probably right, but again, I don’t see a realistic alterative, and with all due respect, you haven’t suggested anything concrete. (You’ll have to remind me what Claytie’s advice was.)
(You’ll have to remind me what Claytie’s advice was.)
At the risk of appearing to gloat unseemingly over the inevitable redistricting: Claytie joked that bad weather is like rape: “as long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.”
unseemingly
Er, “in an unseemly manner”?
Right. Thanks for playing. And thanks for reminding me of that quote. We all know what happened to ol’ Claytie after he said it, right?
That election was Claytie’s to lose, and he went and did so, mostly by alienating his base. The ‘lie back’ comment and similar ones kept suburban Republican women like my mother from voting for him, while refusing to shake Ann Richard’s hand did him no good with suburban Republican men like my father. I think the former was a worse move than the latter. Still, about a million Texans voted for him.
Does this make Claytie responsible for Dubya? I can’t see him using the “is our children learning”? strategy against an incumbent republican governor and I’m not sure if he could have been elected president on the basis of a partial term in the governors chair (assuming he got there in 1998 instead of 1994).
I still think that the R’s ought to go ahead and agree on a plan outside of the special session, then let the Perry call one and see who shows up. Assuming the House manages a quorum, it can meet, pass the bill, and then we’ll see whether the plan is so bad that the Senate can’t muster a quorum. I’m all in favor of the D’s staying away entirely, just to see Tom DeLay’s face on the talk shows ranting about it.
Option 2 is to have all the D’s simply stay home (or at least 100 miles from Austin, anyway), and see who shows up to drag them bodily back to the Capitol. Enough of them are in friendly enough territory that the local state judge probably wouldn’t permit their transport to Austin in defiance of the existing ruling that the DPS lacks authority to “arrest” them. Who else could do the job? Paid kidnappers? Dewhurst’s mercenaries? The National Guard? Frankly, it would be a great PR coup if Perry’s stormtroopers somehow managed to return a couple of the guys to Austin in irons. Just picture the TV footage of elected representatives shackled to their desks.
1233: Can the R’s do that without violating Open Meetings laws? I mean, I’d love to see the R’s unable to form a quorum because they were in jail, but I don’t see it happening.