More Supreme Court weirdness!
Wherein electing a Hispanic (and more minorities overall) is evidence that the rights of minorities have been infringed!
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing in south and west Texas under the state's plan.
Because, you know. all of "those people" vote the same.
So, who is representing this evil (and apparently "Hispanic free") district?
District 23 is represented by Rep. Henry Bonilla, a Republican, and takes in a huge swath of Texas under both the new plan and the court-drawn map that was replaced. The current district stretches from near El Paso to southwest Texas and hugs Texas western border with Mexico, taking in several border districts.
For those of you who still don't catch the irony (or idiocy): Representative Bonilla is...Hispanic. But apparently "the wrong kind of Hispanic" since he is a (gasp) Republican.
So there you have it. All minorities vote the same, electing a minority is proof that minority rights have been harmed and electing more minorities after a redistricting is proof that the new plan discriminates against minorities.
Supreme Court decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-204.pdf
Update: More insanity: apparently the decision was based (in part) upon rules for racial minorities, even though "Hispanic" is an ethnic minority. Gee, what about the rights of Italians to elect "one of their own kind"?
Update 2: I should note that I am happy to see that the court rejected the Democrat claims that the redistricting in its entirety was illegal. Remember, it's not Fascism when the left does it!
Update 3: The criteria of "compactness" apparently renders district 23 "evil" because district 25 is "not compact" with regards to a racial [sic] minority. That is, because district 25 encompasses two "different" sets of Hispanic votes it is "not compact" and renders district 23 "evil" because Hispanics can't elect a fellow Hispanic (Bonilla doesn't count because he's a Republican). Get it? Because Hispanics are different, we have to prevent a situation where some Hispanics vote differently and elect someone who "most Hispanics" don't like because all Hispanics vote the same. Yes, it is insanity. That's what you get when racism (and mistakenly using racism in ethnic concerns) rules the day.
Update 4: Woo hoo! Go Chief Justice Roberts!
Unable to escape the District Court's fact finding, the majority is left in the awkward position of maintaining that its theory about compactness is more important under §2 than the actual prospects of electoral success for Latino-preferred candidates under a State's apportionment plan. And that theory is a novel one to boot. Never before has this or any other court struck down a State's redistricting plan under §2, on the ground that the plan achieves the maximum number of possible majority-minority districts, but loses on style points, in that the minority voters in one of those districts are not as "compact" as the minority voters would be in another district were the lines drawn differently. Such a basis for liability pushes voting rights litigation into a whole new area-an area far removed from the concern of the Voting Rights Act to ensure minority voters an equal opportunity "to elect representatives of their choice."
At least Roberts and Alito recognize the creeping insanity underlying such decisions. Perhaps the district court will stamp its decision "been here, done this, are you on crack?" and send it back to the Supreme Court. ;)
Update 5: Roberts hits on the hypocrisy of the majority decision regarding "compactness".
What is blushingly ironic is that the district preferred by the majority-former District 23-suffers from the same "flaw" the majority ascribes to District 25, except to a greater degree. While the majority decries District 25 because the Latino communities there are separated by "enormous geographical distance," ante, at 29, and are "hundreds of miles apart," ante, at 35, Latino communities joined to form the voting majority in old District 23 are nearly twice as far apart. Old District 23 runs "from El Paso, over 500 miles, into San Antonio and down into Laredo. It covers a much longer distance than . . . the 300 miles from Travis to McAllen [in District 25]." App. 292 (testimony of T. Giberson); see id., at 314 (report of T. Giberson) ("[D]istrict 23 in any recent Congressional plan extends from the outskirts of El Paso down to Laredo, dipping into San Antonio and spanning 540 miles"). So much for the significance of "enormous geographical distance." Or perhaps the majority is willing to "assume" that Latinos around San Antonio have common interests with those on the Rio Grande rather than those around Austin, even though San Antonio and Austin are a good bit closer to each other (less than 80 miles apart) than either is to the Rio Grande.
So who can explain why the new district 25, which is both more compact and a better protection of the race [sic] of Hispanics to "elect the candidate of their choice" than the old district 23 still ends up violating the Voting Rights Act and thus makes the new district 23 evil? Hint: the majority in their decision didn't do such a great job, I'd stay away from quoting them.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing in south and west Texas under the state's plan.
Because, you know. all of "those people" vote the same.
So, who is representing this evil (and apparently "Hispanic free") district?
District 23 is represented by Rep. Henry Bonilla, a Republican, and takes in a huge swath of Texas under both the new plan and the court-drawn map that was replaced. The current district stretches from near El Paso to southwest Texas and hugs Texas western border with Mexico, taking in several border districts.
For those of you who still don't catch the irony (or idiocy): Representative Bonilla is...Hispanic. But apparently "the wrong kind of Hispanic" since he is a (gasp) Republican.
So there you have it. All minorities vote the same, electing a minority is proof that minority rights have been harmed and electing more minorities after a redistricting is proof that the new plan discriminates against minorities.
Supreme Court decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-204.pdf
Update: More insanity: apparently the decision was based (in part) upon rules for racial minorities, even though "Hispanic" is an ethnic minority. Gee, what about the rights of Italians to elect "one of their own kind"?
Update 2: I should note that I am happy to see that the court rejected the Democrat claims that the redistricting in its entirety was illegal. Remember, it's not Fascism when the left does it!
Update 3: The criteria of "compactness" apparently renders district 23 "evil" because district 25 is "not compact" with regards to a racial [sic] minority. That is, because district 25 encompasses two "different" sets of Hispanic votes it is "not compact" and renders district 23 "evil" because Hispanics can't elect a fellow Hispanic (Bonilla doesn't count because he's a Republican). Get it? Because Hispanics are different, we have to prevent a situation where some Hispanics vote differently and elect someone who "most Hispanics" don't like because all Hispanics vote the same. Yes, it is insanity. That's what you get when racism (and mistakenly using racism in ethnic concerns) rules the day.
Update 4: Woo hoo! Go Chief Justice Roberts!
Unable to escape the District Court's fact finding, the majority is left in the awkward position of maintaining that its theory about compactness is more important under §2 than the actual prospects of electoral success for Latino-preferred candidates under a State's apportionment plan. And that theory is a novel one to boot. Never before has this or any other court struck down a State's redistricting plan under §2, on the ground that the plan achieves the maximum number of possible majority-minority districts, but loses on style points, in that the minority voters in one of those districts are not as "compact" as the minority voters would be in another district were the lines drawn differently. Such a basis for liability pushes voting rights litigation into a whole new area-an area far removed from the concern of the Voting Rights Act to ensure minority voters an equal opportunity "to elect representatives of their choice."
At least Roberts and Alito recognize the creeping insanity underlying such decisions. Perhaps the district court will stamp its decision "been here, done this, are you on crack?" and send it back to the Supreme Court. ;)
Update 5: Roberts hits on the hypocrisy of the majority decision regarding "compactness".
What is blushingly ironic is that the district preferred by the majority-former District 23-suffers from the same "flaw" the majority ascribes to District 25, except to a greater degree. While the majority decries District 25 because the Latino communities there are separated by "enormous geographical distance," ante, at 29, and are "hundreds of miles apart," ante, at 35, Latino communities joined to form the voting majority in old District 23 are nearly twice as far apart. Old District 23 runs "from El Paso, over 500 miles, into San Antonio and down into Laredo. It covers a much longer distance than . . . the 300 miles from Travis to McAllen [in District 25]." App. 292 (testimony of T. Giberson); see id., at 314 (report of T. Giberson) ("[D]istrict 23 in any recent Congressional plan extends from the outskirts of El Paso down to Laredo, dipping into San Antonio and spanning 540 miles"). So much for the significance of "enormous geographical distance." Or perhaps the majority is willing to "assume" that Latinos around San Antonio have common interests with those on the Rio Grande rather than those around Austin, even though San Antonio and Austin are a good bit closer to each other (less than 80 miles apart) than either is to the Rio Grande.
So who can explain why the new district 25, which is both more compact and a better protection of the race [sic] of Hispanics to "elect the candidate of their choice" than the old district 23 still ends up violating the Voting Rights Act and thus makes the new district 23 evil? Hint: the majority in their decision didn't do such a great job, I'd stay away from quoting them.