Frankly, this Texas Republican is glad to see the Supreme Court take up the Texas redistricting case.

The Supreme Court today agreed to consider arguments by Democrats and minorities against a controversial Republican redistricting plan, spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay, that redrew congressional boundaries in Texas and helped the GOP gain House seats in last year's elections.

The high court consolidated four separate appeals in the matter, noted "probable jurisdiction" and allotted two hours for oral arguments in the case. The arguments are likely to be heard in April, and a decision could be rendered by the end of June.

n agreeing to hear arguments in the case, the Supreme Court will review a ruling by a three-judge panel that allowed the 2003 redrawing of the Texas congressional districts. The panel rejected challenges to the constitutionality of the new boundaries by plaintiffs who contended they illegally diminished minority voting rights and constituted unlawful partisan gerrymandering.

The redistricting was approved by the Justice Department over the objections of the department's own staff lawyers, The Washington Post reported earlier this month.

The time has come for the Supreme Court to take up, once and for all, the issue of political gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act mandated racial gerrymandering that have plagued the country for many years. It is time to mandate that districts be compact and take into account the geographical and political boundaries that exist in a state to most effectively allow for representation of the people of the state. I believe that such a result will benefit the country as a whole.

But let's consider the issues at hand in Texas. The Washington post presents them in a rather one-sided manner.

Before the redistricting, Texas's 32 House seats were evenly split at 16-16 between Republicans and Democrats. As a result of the new boundaries, Republicans picked up five seats in the November 2004 elections.

Democrats charged that the new districts broke up minority communities and merged them into largely conservative, white districts. Among the big losers was veteran Democratic congressman Martin Frost, whose district was eliminated.

Frost and other Texas Democrats charged that the redistricting disenfranchised as many as 3.6 million black and Hispanic voters in the state.

As a result of the 2000 census, Texas, the nation's second most populous state, was entitled to two additional House seats, bringing its total to 32. But the state legislature failed to agree on a new plan in 2001, triggering lawsuits in state and federal court. A three-judge federal panel ended up drawing what it called politically neutral district boundaries to govern the 2002 congressional elections. Those elections produced a delegation made up of 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans, but one of the Democrats later switched parties.

After gaining control over both houses of the Texas state legislature in 2002 elections, Republicans decided to revisit the redistricting issue in 2003 and eventually succeeded in drawing new boundaries.

In January 2004, a special panel of three federal judges rejected a Democratic challenge to the new map. The Democrats had argued that Texas could not "redistrict in mid-decade" after boundaries had already been drawn, that the GOP plan unconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of race, that it was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and that it violated the Voting Rights Act.

The panel stressed that it was deciding "only the legality" of the redistricting plan, "not its wisdom."

Notice, the article does not mention that the 17-15 split in favor of the Democrats happened despite the fact that the GOP received nearly 60% of the votes. Nor does it mention that the court-drawn plan was based upon the 1990 political gerrymander by a shrinking Democrat majority in the Texas Legislature that disenfranchised Texas Republicans by packing them into districts in a manner illegal if done to racial groups. Lastly, there is no mention of the recommendation by the panel that drew the 2001 plan that the Texas legislature revisit and redraw the map at the earliest possible opportunity.

The plan in question produces results that closely reflect the voting patterns of Texans. Nobody has been disenfranchised by the plan -- in fact, there was a largerturnout of voters in the 2004 election than had been seen in years, in large part becausevoters suddenly had a reason to go to the polls, since their votes mattered for a change.

The Supreme Court should uphold the redistricting plan and strike down the "no retrogression" provision of the Voting Rights Act while setting a standard for redistricting that does away with the more strangelyy drawn districts that exist in texas and other states.

Posted by: Greg at 01:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 774 words, total size 5 kb.

While I am unapologetically Christian -- in fact, because I am unapologetically Christian -- I think that the Detroit News gets this one exactly right.

A Catholic man convicted of a minor drug charge says he faced a choice that the U.S. Constitution simply does not allow: Convert to another faith or go to jail. The disturbing allegations about a Pentecostal-based drug rehabilitation program in Flint should serve as a reminder to judges not to force offenders to attend programs run by faith-based groups that proselytize their captive audience.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Joseph Hanas, 23, who was punished for not completing a residential program at the Inner City Christian Outreach Center. A Genesee County Circuit judge had sentenced Hanas to a year in the center for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. The charges could have been dismissed if he completed the program. Instead, after seven weeks, Hanas asked the court for placement in a secular program, but was denied. Judge Robert Ransom sentenced him to jail for three months and then to boot camp.

Hanas said Inner City staff called Catholicism witchcraft, took away his rosary and prayer book and required seven hours of daily Bible study. In an interview with a Free Press reporter, Dwight Richard Rottiers, the pastor at Inner City, acknowledged that Hanas was told he had to attend Inner City services and was not allowed to attend Catholic services.

No judge should force anyone to choose between exercising a constitutional right and jail.

This seems like a rather clear miscarriage of justice -- a sentence to forced religious indoctrination. I've read elsewhere that the judge knew nothing of the program at the time of the sentence, though he now says he would not sentence someone to the program if he were still hearing cases (he has retired).

The ACLU is exactly right on this one -- dismiss the conviction. It is the only right thing to do.

Posted by: Greg at 01:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

A New York appelate court has overturned a lower court ruling that permitted homosexual marriage and ordered that gender specific terms in the state's marriage law be redefined in a manner contrary to legislative intent and their common meaning.

The appeals court judges said state laws regarding marriage "do not violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the New York State Constitution."

"The role of the courts is `to recognize rights that are supported by the constitution and history, but the power to create novel rights is reserved for the people through the democratic and legislative processes,"' the appeals court wrote, quoting a 2003 decision handed down by a Massachusetts state court.

Now such an argument is sure to upset liberals, who believe that law is whaqt the sours say it is and that a right is a right because liberals say it is.

Furthermore, the panel rejected the trial judge's fundamental re-writing of the state's marriage statute.

The court also criticized the way Ling-Cohan proceeded, saying, "we find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right."

Judges don't make constitutional law -- the people do.

Not only that, but the court laid out a legitimate state purpose in recognizing only heterosexual marriage.

"Society and government have a strong interest in fostering heterosexual marriage as the social institution that best forges a linkage between sex, procreation and child rearing,'' the 55- page majority opinion says. "It systematically regulates heterosexual behavior, brings order to the resulting procreation and ensures a stable family structure for the rearing, education and socialization of children.''

This is precisely what those of us who support traditional marriage have argued all along -- the recognition of heterosexual marriages only is based upon the experience of society over millenia and the biological connection to parenthood.

Posted by: Greg at 09:54 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.