By Bob Ray Sanders
bobray@star-telegram.com
Regardless of the political party in control in Texas, I've never expected the state Legislature to do what is right when it comes to reapportionment.
Protecting favored incumbents, increasing party political power and creating districts that hinder the election/re-election of opposition candidates have been the chief goals of any redistricting plan. Fair representation has been an afterthought if, in fact, there was any thought given to it at all.
Although I've never had faith in legislators, I did believe -- once upon a time -- that the courts would be just, especially on issues as basic as voting rights. But in recent years, I've come to distrust the judicial branch, including the highest court in the land.
For a split second, I regained some hope when a three-judge federal panel in San Antonio, on instructions from a Washington, D.C., district court, redrew redistricting maps for 2012 elections, substituting interim plans that were fairer than those created by the Texas Legislature last summer. Opponents of the legislative maps had complained that they diluted minority voting strength and disregarded the incredible growth of Hispanics in the state.
Some will charge that the only reason I say it's fair is because I agreed with the decision. But all I've ever wanted is for the Legislature to stop overreaching and be less discriminatory in its approach to reapportionment.
One reason I was pleased with the interim maps is that, of the four new congressional districts that Texas gained, the court-drawn lines created a district in Tarrant County that for the first time gives a minority candidate a chance to be elected to Congress. It did not, as legislators have done, deliberately split minority communities to weaken their voting power.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which last week blocked the interim maps drawn by the lower court and set a hearing on the issue for Jan. 9.
That action in itself has caused much confusion for the upcoming primaries because many candidates don't know which seats they can run for.There was a time when the courts were the only place some of us thought we would get a fair hearing. But the conservative majority on the Supreme Court not only disappoints me, it frightens me.
Since this week marks the anniversary of Bush v. Gore, the landmark Supreme Court decision that stopped the Florida recount and made George W. Bush the winner of the 2000 presidential election, it's hard not to think of many on the court being politically motivated.
At that time, I said, and still believe, it was one of the worst decisions by the court since Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sanford in 1857.But we had to accept the ruling, accept Bush as
our president and let the nation move forward.
I will say the same thing regardless of what the court does in this redistricting case, but I can assure you that if somehow the court upholds the lower court's maps, there will be those in this state who won't stop trying for their political power grab.
We've seen it happen before, in 2003, when the Legislature, taking orders from then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in Washington, redrew the lines with the goal of getting rid of seven Democratic incumbents.
Once again, we put our faith in the courts to rectify a wrong. Yet a three-judge panel upheld that map even though the two judges appointed by Republican presidents acknowledged the history of voter discrimination in Texas and said they decided the "legality" of the plan, "not its wisdom."
They even suggested that the Legislature pass a law limiting redistricting to once a decade.The Supreme Court upheld most of that plan but ruled that one congressional district was illegal, which resulted in five of the 32 congressional districts having to be redrawn.
I anxiously await the ruling in this latest case, hoping I'll be surprised by it -- hoping I'll regain my faith in the highest court in the land.
Bob Ray Sanders' column appears Sundays and Wednesdays. 817-390-7775
Looking for comments?
