1. Texas will get over the seniority thing because the state doesn’t particularly have a lot of competitive districts. It might just solidify this map in 2012 with an incumbent protection California plan.

   Republicans likely to keep gathering Seniority for awhile: Gohmert, Hensarling, Culberson, Brady, McCaul, Thornberry, Olson, Merchant

   Republicans who won’t be around for 20+ years: Poe, Conaway, Ron Paul, Neugebauer, Smith, Carter

   Republicans who will retire by 2012ish: Johnson, Hall, Barton, Granger

   Unknown: Sessions

   Sessions may get drawn into the wrong district with the way that Dallas County is going.

   So when it comes to the future and sweet sweet pork. Texans need not worry, their political demographics mean that we’ll probably have Mac Thornberry and Henry Cuellar as senior members of the House in 2028. And they’ll make sure that the 19th district’s lines aren’t totally insane in 2012.

   But not having Stenholm or Frost will hurt for a bit.

2. ANTI-Democracy gerrymanders in ALL States since 4 July 1776.

   Half the votes in half the gerrymander areas = about 25-30 percent indirect minority rule by the corrupt and evil extremist incumbent party hacks (chosen by very small minorities in primary elections) —

   actual de facto MONARCHY in most States with the party hacks picking a de facto monarch — aka Speaker / Majority Leader to control legislative agendas — for the special interest gangs in de facto control.

   Super-nutcase leftwing / rightwing *leaders* in the gerrymander Congress – House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader.

   Democracy NOW via P.R. — before it is too late.

   Total Votes / Total Seats = Equal votes needed for each seat winner.

3. Gerald Hebert was ex-Representative Martin Frost’s and the Democrat’s lawyer/lobbyist during the 2000 redistricting. Martin Frost is the architect of the Democrats 1990’s redistricting in Texas. Maps of that redistricting can not be sent in the mail under the doctrine of one “knowing obscenity when they see it”. In combination with the legislative redistricting plan, the number of election precincts in Harris County doubled because of the meandering boundary lines. When the senate districts were eventually overturned in 1996, one issue was that some precincts were so tiny that they deprived voters of the right to a secret ballot. I drove up to my polling place in 1992 and could have voted for Ben Reyes, Craig Washington, or Bill Archer depending on which door I entered and which of the 3 CD’s my precinct had been shredded into. In other cases, a small village which had been a single precinct, but was literally decimated into 10 election precincts.

   In 1992, then-Governor Ann Richards called a special legislative session to overturn legal legislative districts that had been drawn by a federal court, after those drawn by the legislature in 1991 had been found to be unconstitutional. She likened this process to hog-butchering, and said that some federal judges were better suited for a high chair than a high court.

   The legislative plans did not initially win pre-clearance from the Justice Department, and by the time that they did it had been months after the primaries. John Hannah who was Secretary of State (appointed by Richards) suggested that senate nominees could run from the district with the same number as they had been nominated from, even if the districts were 100s of miles from their residence – or they could withdraw, and let the party bosses choose new nominees. Eventually reason prevailed and the 1992 election was run using the districts drawn by the federal court. In 1994, the legislature-drawn districts were substituted, which meant that all senators had to run again (in Texas, all senators run from newly-drawn district boundaries. They then draw lots to determine which senators initially serve a 2-year term, and which serve a 4-year term).

   In 1995, federal courts ruled against the Frost-architected congressional plan, and removed the race-based wiggly lines but left the partisan-based wiggly lines. They were going to do the same for the senate plan. The State senate considered actually writing the districts into law. But that would have meant letting voters redrawn into new districts actually vote for their senators. So instead, Sen.Gonzalo Barrientos got an opinion from Attorney General Dan Morales (later sent to federal prison) that if the senate merely consent to the new boundaries, elections did not have to be held for the districts that had elected senators for 4-years in 1994. My state senator was up for re-election in 1996, but did not seek re-election. And I was re-drawn into a district of a senator who had been elected in 1994. So I was without a senator that I had actually voted for OR one I could have actually voted for. So much for equal protection.

   In 2000, the legislature redistricting committees held joint hearings throughout the State. This was prior to the release of the 2000 Census. Much of the testimony at these hearings appears to be self-serving for use in potential court cases. Residents would claim that they quite liked having 3 congressmen for their district, or that there was no problem with election precincts that contained a mail box, a lamp post, and 3 trees, but no people.

   Gerald Hebert also appeared. His most notorious claim was based on the 1960’s non-redistricting in Texas. He noted that the legislature had made Joe Pool run at-large, rather than reapportion districts that might threaten representatives like Sam Rayburn (then speaker) or Wright Patman (chair of banking committee). Texas gained 2 representatives as a result of the 1960 Census, but did not redistrict. As a result, the two additional representatives were elected at-large.

   Joe Pool had run for Congress from a district in 1958 and 1960. This was somewhat remarkable because he was the only Democrat who lost in Texas (1 of 21). More remarkable was that he had received more votes in losing than Rayburn and Patman combined had received in winning. As documented in a footnote to Wesberry v Sanders, Texas had the most populous CD in the USA with 951,527 residents. The smallest CD in Texas had 216,371 (a ratio of 4.4 to 1). The largest CD consisted of the entirety of Dallas County. Joe Pool was from Dallas, and had run for Congress in Dallas and lost twice. Not doing redistricting, and using at-large elections was not done to protect long-term incumbents or make poor Joe Pool run at-large. It was to keep voters in large cities of Texas from electing Republicans.

   After Wesberry v Sanders was applied to Texas, Republicans elected 3 representatives in Texas, one each in Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. One would later become President of the United State.

   It is truly despicable that someone like Gerald Hebert, a lawyer who at one time worked for the Justice Department on redistricting matters, would cite that 1960’s inaction by the Texas legislature as something to be admired or followed.

   In December 2000, the Census Bureau released its state population totals, and the fact that Texas had gained two representatives. Democrats immediately filed suit, claiming that Texas did not have 32 equal population districts, since their current map only had 30 districts. They did this to get the inevitable court case into the Eastern District of Texas. Because they had high hopes for a court-ordered plan, Democrats blocked legislative action on a new plan. The federal court, which included John Hannah drew a plan that corrected some of the more curious wigglies of the 1990/1996 plan, added two districts, but maintained much of the outlines of the old plan. The court also took care to preserve a district for each incumbent (when a legislature doesn’t act, a court can consider past legislative actions as normal redistricting practices). Pete Sessions actually ran in one of the new districts, rather than the district that he lived in. Martin Frost attempted to make this an issue in his losing 1996 campaign.

   PS. Wright Patman was removed as chairman of the House banking committee in 1975, despite his seniority.

   Gerald Hebert’s position is that congressional districts are held as fiefs by representatives, in some cases actually inherited by a spouse or child, rather than areas where the People choose Their Representatives. He obviously thinks commissions can be maneuvered by lawyers into preserving districts for incumbents.

   Congress should use computers to draw all congressional districts. They should disregard political parties, incumbents, resident of potential candidates, etc. They should disregard race, ethnicity, language, citizenship, and voter turnout. They should create compact districts that conform to political boundaries (counties, townships, cities).

4. ALL single member district schemes are automatic gerrymanders — even if they look square on maps.

   Half the votes in half the gerrymander districts = about 25-30 percent of the total votes.

   Remedy – PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

   TOTAL VOTES / TOTAL SEATS = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner — IF each winner is to have ONE vote in a legislative body.

   Voting power equal to votes received is also possible — using a TV game show adding machine display for votes. See Price is Right TV show.

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