CD 23 -- Henry Bonilla - San antonio
not 24 in iriving

Ya win some, ya lose some.

Not a total win or a total loss. An emphatic shrug from the Supreme Court.

So, what really happens now?

No mas, No mas. Enough with specials

Basically, you just got screwed if you are poor. Why is it that economic disadvantage isn't taken into account as much as race? The East Texas poor got screwed out of two congressmen, Jim Turner and Max Sandlin, because we're White, poor and Democratic instead of Hispanic, poor and Democratic.

"On a different matter, the court ruled 7-2 that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like � not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital."

UGH... that's just plain bad for a stable Democracy. Maybe in 20 years, after 11,572 redistrictings or so, Congress will pass a law (or amend the Constitution?) to prevent redistricting more than once a decade.

Will some wise politico explain to me how District 23 does not represent Hispanics? Am I missing something here? Based on my extensive experience in D23, I'd say that except for some polygamists in Sonora, a few thousand retirees in Kerrville, and some Bexar County exurbs, the lily whites are in the minority out there. Is it because all the Hispanics aren't necessarily citizens...or registered to vote? Do white ranchers get 4 votes each?

I agree cynical. Looking at the map via the link in the post above, it would seem to be at least 80-90% hispanic. Maybe the issue is that it WAS 95.4% hispanic under the old map but the new map brought it down to 86.4%. Or some other sort of government idiocy.

Me thinks the Supremes just couldn't let the whole thing be okie-dokie so they picked some piddly-ass thing to throw a bone at the Dems.

cynical and gim,

Drawing a district to overconcentrate a particular minority group has the effect of reducing there electoral power as a whole. So the point is the distrcit is too hispanic so that instead of having the hispanic vote heard in more than one district, they are overconcentreted and confined to having one representative in their "barrio" district rahter than the opportunity to elect a second representative in a more diverse district.

CD 23 has a Hispanic voting age population of about 51%.

Which means the actual Hispanic turnout is way, way below that (after you subtract non-registered and non-voters).

Bonilla never got more than about 30% of the Hispanic vote, and Laredo/Webb County was intentionally cut in half do reduce the total Hispanic % in the district....And yet the Repubs tried to call this a Hispanic controlled seat, just because of Bonilla's name.

That's what the Supreme's have a problem with. You can't call a seat a minority seat if it's not one, and you can't split up a large minority population (Laredo, in this case) to prevent those voters from electing a candidate of their choice.

It's an important decision for minority voting rights. Not "piddly-ass" by any measure.

^What Scooby said. Dividing Laredo into 2 different districts kept Bonilla nice & safe.

So let me understand this. Even though the district is 51% voting age hispanic, it is still not considered a "minority" district because only 30% of the hispanics bother to vote?

Gayinmidland,

Only 30% of the Hispanics have ever voted FOR Bonilla. (And that's the high end of the spectrum. In a number of elections, he's done far worse.)

Take a dstrict with 51% Hispanic population, then subtract the usual percent of the population that isn't registered, then subtract the usual percent of the population that doesnt' vote, then subtract the over 2/3 of Hispanics who voted AGAINST the incumbent, then subtract the people in Laredo who were intentionally cut out of the district to weaken Hispanic voting strength and the result is district that is NOT a minority/Hispanic opportunity district.

That's what the court is saying.

51% still seems low to me, but maybe Boerne has grown a lot and perhaps all those new Border Patrol Officers in Presidio are politically active.

I blogged about this three years ago. (Three? God. Seems like a lifetime ago):

"Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform
and an influential Republican activist, recently
explained to the Denver Post the rationale behind
the redistricting effort.

He said Republicans had no problem with urban liberals
- it's the moderate Democrats they're after."

Urban is a codeword for "poor, African-American and minority" though one might suspect Norquist has another word he might use behind closed doors in rooms clouded with the smoke of expensive cigars.

Indeed, the targets of the GOP redistricting plan are white Democrats, mostly from rural swaths of Texas, such as Rep. Charlie Stenholm, D-Abilene, and Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco.

If the urban Democrats are not the target, but white Democrats are, then that indicates to me he wants the rural swaths of Texas (are they mostly white? Certainly mostly white and latino, but not "black," I would surmise) represented by white Republicans.

"It is exactly the Stenholms of the world who will
disappear," Norquist, a Massachusetts native, told
the paper. "They will go so that no Texan need grow
up thinking that being a Democrat is acceptable
behavior."

Five things stand out here:

1. Norquist is admitting that it's white Democrats he's targeting, and that they are leaving the (unacceptable) urban Democrats alone.

2. Poor Democrats don't give as much money as Rich Republicans - so this is a bid to cut off the money supply to Democrats.

3. Norquist is not from Texas. So why does he deign to speak for Texans? Seems to me that the TX Democratic party could use this as a rallying cry. "East Coast Elitist Knows What's Best for Texas." I've only been in the Lone Star State three years [6 years, now], but I know that Texans are pretty nationalistic. If they knew about Norquist's statement, I don't think they'd appreciate it, no matter which side of the ideological fence they are on.

4. What Norquist means to say is "No white Texan need grow up thinking being a Democrat is acceptable behavior."

5. If white Texans think being Democratic is not acceptable, and all Democrats are minorities, then it would lead one to believe that he thinks that no white Texans should think that it's acceptable to be a minority, either. "No white, Republican Texan need grow up thinking that being non-white is acceptable."

I think the Progessive Pundits, as well as the DNC and Texas Democratic parties should begin calling the GOP's redistricting plan just what it is - an East Coast, Elitist, Racist plan to disenfanchise socially progressive Texans.

Tom DeLay, Gover Norquist and Governor Rick Perry are not uniters, they are dividers, and racists, too. Could Strom Thurmond be more proud?

So...since Congressman Carter claimed the other day that there is no racial bias in Texas anymore, as long as we're re-drawing Congressional maps lets give him one with a Hispanic majority, so they can exercise a little bias on his racist ass.

This two party political system is corrupt, retarded, and driving the bus over the cliff.

and, yes, I'm a moron.

serves you right for taking the bus.

JimmyCity, what we need is:

Nonpartisan redistricting, which respects communities of interest, draws compact, contiguous districts, but does it without access to voting records.

With more reasonable districts, maybe third party candidates would have a fighting chance.

JELyon: You've got to have some really great drugs there - you must share them with the rest of us cynics.

The new strategery: If we can't disenfranchise the Hispanics, then we'll keep them confused by changing their congressman (woman...person..whatever) every 3 or 4 years by redistricting.

What Cynical says is sadly going to be at least part of the strategy. You can't vote if you go to the wrong precinct let alone the wrong district, and since we're checking everyone's name against the list at the polling place those lines get really long.

Pfft:

You can bitch about it, or start trying to do something about it.

Or, I suppose, you could bitch about it *and* start trying to do something about it.

Oh - there's a third option: you turn off, tune out, drop out.

I see far too many people who bitch about how politicians don't represent the average person, but don't want to do the work required to change things.

If you care enough to bitch about the system, but don't care enough to start working to change the system, then you don't care all that much, really.

My thoughts.