It's ON, Tom DeLay...
Well, to my great surprise and delight, the Texas re-districting battle is back on. The US supreme court sent the case back to the lower courts and told them to re-consider on the basis of the Pennsylvania case, in which the Court upheld the Republican partisan redistricting map as constitutional.
Democrat Chris Bell, who lost his primary race this year following the redistricting, appears unclear on how the Pennsylvania case is relevant on the Texas situation. he suggests that the supreme court sent back the Texas case for a reason, but does not suggest what that reason might be. see the houston chronicle article for his comments: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/page1/2854073
Maybe the dems don't want to give up their strategy, but it is clear to me why the texas case is being sent back while the pennsylvania map was upheld. In a word: TomDeLay.
To my knowledge, the House Majority Leader did not hand deliver a re-districting map to the state legislature of Pennsylvania. He's the architect of the new Texas map, no question about that. Is this ethical? Is it appropriate? Is it legal? Legal scholars, please advise, but there is a clear conflict of interest here, even if there is not technically an illegal act.
Let's get this straight:
1.) Tom DeLay's PAC funnels money into state congressional races to achieve the first Republican majority in the state legislature since Reconstruction.
2.) The state legislature is responsible for passing new districting maps for US House congressional seats.
3.) Tom DeLay hand delivers a new map for US House seats to the state legislature. They didn't come up with it themselves. Tommie Boy is all but appointing his future Republican US House colleagues. He is all but destroying the chance of some of his current Democratic US House colleagues to be re-elected.
Is it proper for the US House leader to be involved in the state legislature, at least insofar as his involvement applies to his own re-election or the election of his colleagues? If it's not illegal, it should be. It is certainly unethical and uncollegial.
I believe the Supreme Court knows that this is the difference between the Pennsylvania case and the Texas scandal. They know that congressional re-districting is inherently partisan. They also recognize the clear impropriety of allowing officials in power to abuse their power to remain in power.
Why, in the Chronicle article, is not ONE reference made to Tommie Boy's influence in the Texas map scandal? Why does Chris Bell make no mention of the fact of this significant difference in the cases? Can the Democrats possibly win this fight if they don't even realize the crime that has been committed? Am I the only one outraged by the abuse of power?
Thank God for the Supreme Court, conservative though they be, for seeing the injustice in this case and sending it back (hint hint- take a look at the case again, people). Please, Texas Democrats, take the hint.
posted by adamjacks @ 11:51 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
jtuck,
I think if my primary criticism was federal interference with state policy, my critique would be unfounded. The main problem is that the state legislature has the responsibility of setting the districts from which US representatives will be elected. The majority leader of the US house should not interfere in state politics insofar as his interference ultimately affects his OWN reelection.
Perhaps you are correcting in leveling the harshest criticism at the "undermining of the democratic process." I am not sure, however, where exactly this undermining took place. Was it the state legislators trying to advance their ideology beyond their tenure? I don't think that in itself undermines the process. All legislators ultimately wish to advance their ideology indefinitely. In what way did Tom DeLay undermine the democratic process, apart from his illegal use of funds?
I maintain that a central principle of US democracy is separation of powers. On the federal level, the executive, judicial, and legislative branches are separate so as to maintain a balance of power. There is also a historical separation in federal and state powers in part to help maintain local control over policy as well as representation. While US representatives do have a vested interest in local affairs (i.e. state policy), it is inappropriate for them to take part in making policy that has been specifically delegated to state legislators.
I would argue further that there is a specific reason that redistricting is a duty of state legislators and not federal legislators: the people running for a particular office should not be involved in setting the conditions (i.e. districts) under which they will run. jtuck's argument that Tom DeLay's activities were not necessarily carried out for his own benefit are likely true: it is unlikely that DeLay would be ousted from office in his district. But his involvement with the state legislature makes such influence possible, and in the extreme case, we cannot have the Texas delegation of the US House voting themselves back into office. Such circularity is inherently undemocratic, as it undermines the will of the citizens who elected them in the first place. This argument is perhaps philosophical, but it is my belief that this is the point on which the US Supreme Court sent the case back.
Post a Comment
<< Home