Legal Challenges to Texas Redistricting Plans Begin to Move Ahead

Posted on by November 22, 2021

Many lawsuits are pending against the new Texas district boundaries for U.S. House and state legislative districts. Most of the challenges are in federal court in the western district, and have been consolidated under League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v Abbott, 3:21cv-259. The state has already filed a brief to dismiss the cases, which are based on arguments that the districts injure racial and ethnic minorities. Thanks to Jim Riley for this news.

The Texas primary is still scheduled for March 2022. Texas is the only state that is still planning a primary that early in 2022. However if these lawsuits result in changes, the primary will probably be postponed.

Comments

Legal Challenges to Texas Redistricting Plans Begin to Move Ahead — 40 Comments

  1. In before Demo Rep makes a jibberish post about purge lists and illegal gerrymandering.

  2. Troll MORON first with its troll MORON junk post.

    —
    G math –

    1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged g dists = 1/4 or less control = OLIGARCHY.

    UNEQUAL winner votes

    UNEQUAL total district votes.

    SUPER-WORSE EXTREMIST PRIMARY MATH.

    SUBVERSION OF 4-4 RFG AND 14-1 AMDT EP CL
    —-
    REMEDY SINCE 1840S / 1868 =

    PR

    SIMPLE PR —

    TOTAL VOTES / TOTAL MEMBERS = EQUAL VOTES TO ELECT EACH MEMBER.

    CAN JR FILE AN AMICUS BRIEF ???

  3. 22 NOV 1963 – DALLAS, TX — WHERE WERE YOU DAY BEFORE 9-11-2001 WHERE WHERE YOU DAY.

    MURDER OF PREZ JFK.

    BOTCHED COP SECURITY RE ACCUSED – LHO.

    FEDS SUBVERT TX CORONER.

    ONGOING CONSPIRACIES – who benefited the most ???

  4. A double dose of retarded jibberish from Demo Rep! The Kennedy murder has nothing to do with this, you fucking retard. Please seek help.

  5. @Demo Rep is a retard… How about you debate him on his arguments instead of using ad hominems…. Or are you incapable of using intelligent thought to engage in reasoned well-mannered discussion?

  6. You can’t debate retards, especially when they can’t even post in complete sentences. He thinks we should eat pets.

  9. Klatt revealed his gravatar accidentally on one of these “retard” posts in the past. They always show the same attack on Demo Rep about “eating pets” and “purge lists” and so on.

  12. Good question, “Questions”. I doubt it, but who knows? I suspect “Fact Checker” is working for some other agency. He could be the FBI agent sent in to monitor the Israeli Mossad and ADL and SPLC trolls.

  14. JR-

    NOOOO RFG in ANY State.

    RFG = MAJORITY RULE INDIRECT DEMOCRACY IN EACH STATE —

    >>>> NOOOO MINORITY RULE MONARCH/OLIGARCH REGIMES ALLOWED TO BE A MEMBER STATE IN THE UNITED ***STATES*** OF AMERICA — AS IN 1787 EUROPE.

    ISSUE N-O-T PUSHED EARLY ON DUE TO SEVERE GERRYMANDERS FROM DAY 1 IN 1776 [ATLANTIC COASTAL DISTRICTS OVER-REPRESENTED – NEW WESTERN AREAS UNDER-REPRESENTED) AND SLAVERY.

    WORRY ENOUGH ABOUT BRITS BRIBING SMALL STATES LIKE RI OR GA TO BE BRIT MILITARY BASES.

    SEE FEDERALIST. 1787-1788.

    SCOTUS HACKS — BRAIN DEAD IGNORANT ABOUT RFG ESP.

    1840-1842 DORR’S WAR IN SMALL POP RI OVER GERRYMANDERS AND DEFINITION OF ELECTOR.

    SEE 1844 RI CONST.

    STRING AND BAND-AIDS HOLDING USA TOGETHER UNTIL 1865 UNION ARMY/NAVY VICTORY OVER SLAVE MONARCHS / OLIGARCHS.

  15. If no State has a Republican Form of Government, how could its Legislature apply for protection against domestic Violence?

    Who is the guarantor of a Republican Form of Government: The Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, the US Military, Queen Elizabeth II?

  22. Can US Marshals act on their own volition? Do they still have authority to create a posse?

    I’m trying to understand how the United States would guarantee to the State of Michigan a Republican Form of Government?

  23. Andy or Paul could be the fake “fact checker.” If Andy is not ffact checkers, he sure seems to take things “fact checker” says at face value and repeat them. How does Andy even know there even is a Will Klatt in real life? Could just be fake profile put up by “fact checker” or the entity behind it.

    Supposing Will Klatt even exists, why would Andy but that this Klatt person he never heard of before is trolling here? Fact MOLESTERS “evidence” AGAINST Klatt is a single comment “slipped up and used his gravatar”. That would have been very easy for “fact checker” to fake because all he would have needed to do it was Klatt email address.

    Andy takes this claptrap seriously because he’s either behind it himself or because it feeds into his own world view twisted by far right, alt right and antisemitic conspiracy views and he’s allowing himself to be manipulated.

    If there’s any Intel agency involved, the most likely suspect for a straightforward read of “fact checker” and associated characters is that they push a eor

  24. …Push a world view that Russian Intel has been promoting in the West, including in the USA, best known as the “alt right”….

    There is no known evidence that FBI or other US Intel agencies have been promoting it, although it’s likely that they have thoroughly infiltrated it. So, if “fact checker” were US INTEL, it would more likely be investigating Kremlin agents and the alt right, not Jewish agencies.

    If “fact checker” is Paul then Andy should pprobably think a bit outside his self created mental box as to what he thinks Paul could be trying to accomplish with that character.

    If “fact checker” is Andy, well, the motives would fit, but is Andy smart enough to pull off all the “fact checker” and associated BS, or is he working with some other people on this as part of a TROLL group?

    If fact checker is not Andy, he’s definitely manipulated Andy quite successfully to be his/its/theirs little pawn.

  25. Mr. RETARD at 10:09 pm, Wikipedia is not a bad source. Committees of professional researchers have found it to be about as or more accurate than standard reference encyclopedias, and much more comprehensive. Because it’s real time collaboration and pseudoanonymous, it is subject to manipulated agendas, but there’s also a real time peer review system.

    To get the most out of Wikipedia, read the talk page associated with any given article and read through cited articles, compare other sources on the same subject, etc. Keep in mind that trending topics are the most likely to contain misinformation, because there hasn’t been enough time for peer review correction of recently added edits to work.

  26. Whoever Nov 22 at 10:48 am, Mr. RETARD is probably capable of reasoned debate, but prefers to just vent frustration and try to make himself feel superior to someone, because it’s easier and more immediately gratifying. Demo rep does the same thing by constantly calling people trolls, morons, retards, etc.

    Demo rep also doesn’t connect the dots very well in his rambling posts. At times, meaning can be wrenched from them, but it takes more work than it’s worth for just about anyone. It is understandable that some people would play tit for tat with demi rep’s constant reference to everyone who disagree with him as morons, retards, etc. It doesn’t accomplish anything, it’s just purely reactive.

  27. The garbage comments were all probably posted by the same person or group who or which keeps claiming to know who posts garbage comments.

  30. It all depends on who you classify as a troll, moron, or both. Some people would classify demo rep as one or the other, some as both, some as neither. The same goes for many others here. Opinions also vary on what is or is not a garbage comment, much less who knows who left which one, how, or why.

  31. JR-

    28 U.S. Code § 564 – Powers as sheriff

    United States marshals, deputy marshals and such other officials of the Service as may be designated by the Director, in executing the laws of the United States within a State, may exercise the same powers which a sheriff of the State may exercise in executing the laws thereof.

    (Added Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7608(a)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4513.)

    —–

    28 U.S. Code § 566 – Powers and duties

    *****
    (c) Except as otherwise provided by law or Rule of Procedure, the United States Marshals Service shall execute all lawful writs, process, and orders issued under the authority of the United States, and shall command all necessary assistance to execute its duties.

    (d) Each United States marshal, deputy marshal, and any other official of the Service as may be designated by the Director may carry firearms and make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in his or her presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony.
    —–
    If a USA marshal can not deal with a criminal problem guess what happens then ???

    Think major force – esp USA Army and State militias. See USC Title 10.
    ——
    28 USC 1331

    The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

    (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 930; Pub. L. 85–554, § 1, July 25, 1958, 72 Stat. 415; Pub. L. 94–574, § 2, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2721; Pub. L. 96–486, § 2(a), Dec. 1, 1980, 94 Stat. 2369.)

    [should have add-on — not within the original jurisdiction of another court of the United States].

  32. @DR,

    Who would have standing to bring a case against Michigan over its alleged failure to have a Republican Form of Government. Would you advise them to file in Lansing or Detroit? Who would the named defendants be?

    Is the violation on the part of the State of Michigan or the United States for failure to act as guarantor?

    Can sheriffs or marshals act without probable cause?

  33. JR –

    minority rule gerrymanders = subversion of 4-4 RFG AND 14-1 Amdt EP cL.

    US Dist Ct – sue MI SOS [top election officer] for starters – 28 USC 1331 above — law section via Congress.
    —-
    PR remedy
    —————-

    SOME RFG comments —

    Federalist — Republican Form of Government – Majority Rule 20 Aug 2011

    Federalist, 1787-1788 — Left page number from The Federalist edited by Jacob E. Cooke (1961) — (Number-Paragraph)

    http://www.constitution.org/fed/federali.txt

    emphasis added

    57 10-2 By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

    60 10-11 If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.

    61 10-12 By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.

    61 10-13 From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

    62 10-14 A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

    62 10-15 The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

    63 10-20 The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

    83 14-2 The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.

    84 14-4 Such a fallacy may have been the less perceived, as most of the popular governments of antiquity were of the democratic species; and even in modern Europe, to which we owe the great principle of representation, no example is seen of a government wholly popular, and founded, at the same time, wholly on that principle.

    130 21-3 The want of a mutual guaranty of the State governments is another capital imperfection in the federal plan. There is nothing of this kind declared in the articles that compose it; and to imply a tacit guaranty from considerations of utility, would be a still more flagrant departure from the clause which has been mentioned, than to imply a tacit power of coercion from the like considerations. The want of a guaranty, though it might in its consequences endanger the Union, does not so immediately attack its existence as the want of a constitutional sanction to its laws.

    130 21-4 Without a guaranty the assistance to be derived from the Union in repelling those domestic dangers which may sometimes threaten the existence of the State constitutions, must be renounced. Usurpation may rear its crest in each State, and trample upon the liberties of the people, while the national government could legally do nothing more than behold its encroachments with indignation and regret. A successful faction may erect a tyranny on the ruins of order and law, while no succor could constitutionally be afforded by the Union to the friends and supporters of the government. The tempestuous situation from which Massachusetts [1786 Shay’s Rebellion] has scarcely emerged, evinces that dangers of this kind are not merely speculative. Who can determine what might have been the issue of her late convulsions, if the malcontents had been headed by a Caesar or by a Cromwell? Who can predict what effect a despotism, established in Massachusetts, would have upon the liberties of New Hampshire or Rhode Island, of Connecticut or New York?

    131 21-5 The inordinate pride of State importance has suggested to some minds an objection to the principle of a guaranty in the federal government, as involving an officious interference in the domestic concerns of the members. A scruple of this kind would deprive us of one of the principal advantages to be expected from union, and can only flow from a misapprehension of the nature of the provision itself. It could be no impediment to reforms of the State constitution by a majority of the people in a legal and peaceable mode. This right would remain undiminished. The guaranty could only operate against changes to be effected by violence. Towards the preventions of calamities of this kind, too many checks cannot be provided. The peace of society and the stability of government depend absolutely on the efficacy of the precautions adopted on this head. Where the whole power of the government is in the hands of the people, there is the less pretense for the use of violent remedies in partial or occasional distempers of the State. The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men. A guaranty by the national authority would be as much levelled against the usurpations of rulers as against the ferments and outrages of faction and sedition in the community.

    more – about 4 times the above

    Too many super LAZY useless lawyers / SCOTUS hacks who can barely find the USA Const in a law library since 1789.

    ALL of the State/local gerrymander cases since 1964 have been Republican Form of Government cases
    – regardless of SCOTUS which is brain dead ignorant / clueless about the RFG related language shown ABOVE – See New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144, 183-185 (1992).

  34. There are also the USA Atty Gen and the USA Dist Attys –

    to enforce the USA Const in the USA Courts —

    all part of the USA in 4-4.

  35. It’s not permitted here to ask demo rep whether he agrees with the quotes or cites from the usa founders that he posted above!?

  36. It’s not permitted here to ask demo rep whether he agrees with the quotes or cites from the usa founders that he posted above!?

    Wow, just wow.

  39. NOOOO TIME FOR TROLL MORONS –

    STATES ALMOST DEAD VIA BIDEN 2021 VAXX STUFF AND PENDING 2021 COMMIE WELFARE BILL.

  40. You mean you have no time to answer questions which actually try to take you seriously and understand your logic, on the assumption or hope that there is some kind of logic there. Too bad. I think there is somewhere under all your OCD repetitive defenses, but you’ve encrusted yourself in them too deeply to dig it out. Oh well.

    “STATES ALMOST DEAD VIA BIDEN 2021 VAXX STUFF AND PENDING 2021 COMMIE WELFARE BILL.”

    Supposing that is true, is that a good thing or a bad thing if states are “almost dead”? How long have you been saying that states are almost dead btw? Do you imagine that your comments on this blog are what will turn things around?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.