Texas Redistricting Case argued before Court

A central claim of Hacker and Pierson is that our political outcomes are more a result of structural rules than they are of cultural preferences. Instead of a sift to the right among american voters, instead we see a series of electoral rules that favor the Republican Coalition.

One rule that clearly matters for political representation in the United States is our ue of single-member districts to elect members of congress, instead of using proportional representation (this is the same as Bardes, et al.'s discussion of "The Winner-Take-All Electoral System," on page 270; see also, what If... on page 250).

How those single member districts is drawn -- gerrymandering, see chapter 10, page 349 -- matters for the political fortunes of the two parties. Hacker and Pierson discuss how then-Majority Leader Tom Delay was instrumental in redistricting in Texas in 2003, a move that ensured Republican control of Congress (see 124-25)

In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, although it is difficult to prove given redistricting is done usually every 10 years. What was unusual about the Texas redsitricting case is that new lines were drawn by Republicans in 2003, two years after having just been drawn (by Democrats).

From the New York Times:

Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Texas Redistricting Case

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 1, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Texas Republicans were guilty of a naked political power grab when they redrew congressional boundaries, the Supreme Court was told Wednesday in a case that could have a major impact on elections.

Justices are considering whether the Republican-friendly map promoted by former Majority Leader Tom DeLay is unconstitutional.

The 2003 boundaries approved by the GOP-controlled state Legislature helped the Republican Party pick up six seats in Congress, but it also led to serious woes for DeLay. He was charged in state court with money laundering in connection with fundraising for legislative candidates. He gave up his leadership post and is fighting the charges.

''The only reason it was considered, let alone passed, was to help one political party get more seats than another,'' justices were told by Paul M. Smith, a Washington lawyer who represents the League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the groups challenging the plan.

''That's a surprise,'' Justice Antonin Scalia quipped. ''Legislatures redraw the map all the time for political reasons.''

But Smith said lawmakers should not be able to get away with drawing oddly shaped districts that protect incumbent Republicans and deny voters their chance to vote for other candidates.

The court could throw out the map, just in time for elections this year.

Or it could not. But it nicely illustrates that battles in Democracy are not just about mobilizing you to the polls, but also determining the rules uder which our votes will be counted.

Update Oh, yes, the other major case the court heard today involved Anna Nicole Smith and "the will." The case is really about federalism -- the power of federal courts to become involved in state probate matters.