2003 Texas redistricting

Last updated

Comparison of U.S. House election results for Texas in 2002 and 2004 after the creation of new boundaries for congressional districts following mid-term redistricting in 2003. Blue denotes a Democratic hold, dark red denotes a Republican hold, and light red denotes a Republican gain. Texas redistricting - 2002 and 2004.png
Comparison of U.S. House election results for Texas in 2002 and 2004 after the creation of new boundaries for congressional districts following mid-term redistricting in 2003. Blue denotes a Democratic hold, dark red denotes a Republican hold, and light red denotes a Republican gain.

The 2003 Texas redistricting was a controversial intercensus state plan that defined new congressional districts. In the 2004 elections, this redistricting supported the Republicans taking a majority of Texas's federal House seats for the first time since Reconstruction. Democrats in both houses of the Texas Legislature staged walkouts, unsuccessfully trying to prevent the changes. Opponents challenged the plan in three suits, combined when the case went to the United States Supreme Court in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006).

Contents

On June 28, 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the statewide redistricting as constitutional, with the exception of Texas's 23rd congressional district, which it held was racially gerrymandered in violation of Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, apparently to try to protect a Hispanic Republican representative. A three-judge Federal District Court redrew District 23 and four other nearby districts: 15, 21, 25, and 28. In November 2006, a special election was held in the new districts. All incumbents won except in District 23. There, Republican incumbent Henry Bonilla was forced into a December run-off after a jungle primary; he lost to Democratic challenger Ciro Rodriguez.

Overview

After Republicans won control of the Texas state legislature in 2002 for the first time in 130 years, they intended to work toward establishing a majority of House of Representatives seats from Texas held by their party. After the 2002 election, Democrats had a 17–15 edge in House seats representing Texas or 53% of the seats to Republican's 47%, although the state voted for Republicans in congressional races 53.3%–43.8%. [1] After a protracted partisan struggle, the legislature enacted a new congressional districting map, Plan 1374C, introduced in the Texas House by Representative Phil King of Weatherford. In the 2004 congressional elections, Republicans won 21 seats to the Democrats' 11, [2] which suggested they had considerably surpassed their margin of preference among voters.

On June 28, 2006, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion that threw out one of the districts in the plan as a violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act because of racial gerrymandering. It ordered the lower court to produce a remedial plan, which it did in Plan 1440C. The Supreme Court ruling was not considered to seriously threaten Republican gains from the 2004 elections. [3]

1991–2003 evolution and Tom DeLay's role

The Texas Legislature had last enacted a congressional redistricting plan in 1991, following the 1990 census. At the time, Democrats held both the governor's seat (with Ann Richards) and control of both state legislative branches. By the 2000 census, Republicans had recaptured the state executive branch, having elected Governor George W. Bush and Lt. Governor Rick Perry, as well as control of the Texas Senate. Democrats maintained their majority in the Texas House of Representatives.

In 2001, Democrats and Republicans were unable to agree on new district maps to respond to the latest census. The Republican minority recommended the issue be submitted to a panel of judges, per state law. The judges, being "hesitant to undo the work of one political party for the benefit of another", [4] drew a new map which left many of the 1991 districts intact. It yielded a 17-to-15 Democratic majority in Texas's US House delegation after the 2002 elections.

For Texas House and Senate redistricting, the Texas Constitution provides that the Legislative Redistricting Board (LRB) convenes when the state legislature is unable to approve, for either body, a redistricting plan in the first legislative session following the census. In June 2001, the task of redistricting passed to the LRB after the state legislature failed to pass a redistricting plan for either the House or Senate. [5] The LRB consists of five statewide officials, the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House, the Attorney General, the State Comptroller, and the Commissioner of the General Land Office. Four of these five officials were Republican, and the resulting redistricting plans were seen as favorable to Republicans.

Tom DeLay led the Republican effort to redraw congressional districts between censuses. Tom DeLay, 108th Congress.png
Tom DeLay led the Republican effort to redraw congressional districts between censuses.

In September 2001, then House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (TX-22) organized Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), a political action committee designed to gather campaign funds for Republican candidates throughout Texas—in particular with an eye to gaining control of the state House Speakership, then held by Democrat Pete Laney. TRMPAC was modeled closely after DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), a federal-level organization created to raise funds for Republicans during the 2000 national elections. [6] Simultaneously, as has been well documented in the media, DeLay played a key role in the ongoing Texas redistricting effort.

Special legislative sessions

In 2002, after winning a majority of seats in the State House of Representatives, Republicans gained complete control of the legislature. With the urging of Governor Rick Perry and Tom Delay, who had assumed the position of US House Majority Leader in January 2003, the Republican majority introduced legislation to redraw the court-drawn districts from 2001.

Jim Dunnam led the "Killer Ds" walkout. Jim Dunnam TX House.jpg
Jim Dunnam led the "Killer Ds" walkout.

Lacking sufficient votes to stop the new plan, 52 Democratic members fled the state to prevent a quorum (an act known as quorum-busting) in the Texas House, effectively preventing a vote from taking place during the regular session. The 52 Democrats, known as the "Killer Ds", returned to the state when time had expired for the bill. But in the summer of 2003, Governor Rick Perry called a series of special legislative sessions in order to continue the redistricting effort. With control of more than one-third of the seats in the State Senate, the Democrats invoked a two-thirds rule, preventing a vote on the redistricting plan during the first special session. Half an hour after ending the first special session, Governor Perry called a second special session. This time, due to the calendaring of the redistricting bill, the two-thirds rule would not come into play.

Eleven of the twelve Democratic state senators left the state to prevent a quorum. The Senators assembled in Albuquerque, New Mexico and were referred to as the Texas Eleven. After a month-long stand off, Senator John Whitmire returned to the State Senate. The redistricting plan was passed in a third special legislative session. After the 2004 elections, Texas' U.S. House delegation had a Republican majority, 21-11, for the first time since Reconstruction.

An article in the March 6, 2006, issue of The New Yorker magazine, written by Jeffrey Toobin, quoted Texas's junior Republican Senator John Cornyn as saying, "Everybody who knows Tom knows that he's a fighter and a competitor, and he saw an opportunity to help the Republicans stay in power in Washington." Toobin reported that DeLay left Washington and returned to Texas to oversee the project while final voting was underway in the state legislature, and that "several times during the long days of negotiating sessions, DeLay personally shuttled proposed maps among House and Senate offices in Austin." [7] Texas Monthly editor Paul Burka, writing in the magazine's May 2006 issue, characterized the measure as "DeLay's midcensus congressional redistricting plan" and said, "[I]n order to increase his Republican majority in Congress, he [DeLay] resorted to a midcensus redistricting plan." [8]

List of the "Killer Ds"

Justice Department review

U.S. congressional districts covering Travis County, Texas (outlined in red) in 2002, left, and 2004, right. In 2003, the majority of Republicans in the Texas legislature redistricted the state. The plan diluted the voting power of Democratic residents of this county by distributing its residential areas among majority-Republican districts. TravisCountyDistricts.png
U.S. congressional districts covering Travis County, Texas (outlined in red) in 2002, left, and 2004, right. In 2003, the majority of Republicans in the Texas legislature redistricted the state. The plan diluted the voting power of Democratic residents of this county by distributing its residential areas among majority-Republican districts.

At the time of the 2003 redistricting, Texas was under the pre-clearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The State of Texas obtained pre-clearance from the US Department of Justice for its 2003 congressional redistricting plan.

But in December 2005, The Washington Post reported, "Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo," uncovered by the newspaper. [9] The document, endorsed by six Justice Department attorneys, said

[T]he redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts ... The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a discriminatory effect. [9]

In addition, according to the Post, Justice Department lawyers "found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory compared with other options". Texas legislators proceeded with the new plan "because it would maximize the number of Republican federal lawmakers in the state". [9]

The article noted that senior political appointees in the Justice Department had overridden the position and findings by the Civil Rights Division's career civil service staff lawyers and analysts, and approved the redistricting. [9]

Criticism

Democrats criticized the 2003 redistricting plan, citing the lack of precedent for redistricting twice in a decade (a so-called "mid-decade" redistricting) and argued that it was conducted for purely political gain by the Republican Party. Public comments by some Republicans lent support to this latter claim, since many discussed their expectations of picking up several Republican seats. Some minority groups argued the plan was unconstitutional, as it would dilute their influence and possibly violate the "one-person-one-vote" principle of redistricting. Republicans argued that, since most voters in the state were Republicans, that they be represented by a majority-Republican congressional delegation in Washington.

The 2004 elections under the new redistricting resulted in Texas Republicans gaining a majority of House seats by a 21–11 margin, nearly a 2/1 ratio in terms of seats (66% of seats). This was significantly larger than the 61/38 voting ratio of Republicans to Democrats in the Presidential race. It was much more lopsided than the total results in the 32 House races, which resulted in 56/40/3 for Republican to Democratic voting (the two main parties did not both run candidates in four districts). [10]

2006 Supreme Court review

The US Supreme Court issued an opinion on the case in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry on June 28, 2006. While the Court said states are free to redistrict as often as desired, the justices ruled that Texas's 23rd congressional district was invalid, as it violated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act by racial gerrymandering. This decision required lawmakers to adjust boundaries in line with the Court's ruling. [3]

A three-judge panel, under an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals, oversaw the redistricting. On June 29, 2006, a U.S. District Judge ordered both sides to submit proposed maps by July 14, respond to their opponents' maps by July 21, and be prepared to hold oral arguments on August 3. [11]

Targeted Democrats

The 2003 redistricting targeted ten districts with white Democratic incumbents, avoiding the seven districts with minority Democratic incumbents. [12]

The redistricting appeared intended to protect Henry Bonilla, a Hispanic Republican of TX-23. He had faced a stiff challenge from conservative Democrat Henry Cuellar in 2002. It also neutralized liberal Democrat Ciro Rodriguez. This was done by putting the two Democrats in the same district and forcing them to run against each other for the Democratic nomination (Cuellar won).

In 2006, however, the Supreme Court ruling required redrawing the boundaries for TX-23. It resulted in a special election, in which Bonilla faced six Democratic candidates and an independent in a jungle primary. He was defeated by Democrat Ciro Rodriguez in the run-off.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Henry Bonilla</span> American journalist (born 1954)

Henry Bonilla is a former congressman who represented Texas's 23rd congressional district in the United States House of Representatives. He was defeated in his bid for re-election by Ciro Rodriguez, a former Democratic member of Congress, in a special election runoff held on December 12, 2006. His term expired January 3, 2007 when the 110th Congress officially began.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">North Carolina's congressional districts</span> U.S. House districts in the state of North Carolina

North Carolina is currently divided into 14 congressional districts, each represented by a member of the United States House of Representatives. After the 2000 census, the number of North Carolina's seats was increased from 12 to 13 due to the state's increase in population. In the 2022 elections, per the 2020 United States census, North Carolina gained one new congressional seat for a total of 14.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of Texas</span> Politics of a U.S. state

For about a hundred years, from after Reconstruction until the 1990s, the Democratic Party dominated Texas politics, making part of the Solid South. In a reversal of alignments, since the late 1960s, the Republican Party has grown more prominent. By the 1990s, it became the state's dominant political party and remains so to this day, as Democrats have not won a statewide race since the 1994 Lieutenant gubernatorial election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Texas's 25th congressional district</span> U.S. House district for Texas

Texas's 25th congressional district of the United States House of Representatives stretches from Arlington and Fort Worth to some of its outer southwestern suburbs, as well as rural counties east of Abilene. The district's current Representative is Roger Williams.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alabama's congressional districts</span>

The U.S. state of Alabama is currently divided into seven congressional districts, each represented by a member of the United States House of Representatives.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas</span> 2006 House elections in Texas

The 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas were held on November 7, 2006, to determine the 32 U.S. representatives from the state of Texas, one from each of the state's 32 congressional districts. These elections coincided with the 2006 midterm elections, which included a gubernatorial election and an election to the U.S. Senate.

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas</span> 2008 House elections in Texas

The 2008 elections for the Texas delegation of the United States House of Representatives was held on November 4, 2008. 31 of 32 congressional seats that make up the state's delegation were contested. In Texas's 14th congressional district no one challenged incumbent Ron Paul. Since Representatives are elected for two-year terms, those elected will serve in the 111th United States Congress from January 4, 2009, until January 3, 2011.

Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court ruling that was significant in the area of partisan redistricting and political gerrymandering. The court, in a plurality opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, with Justice Anthony Kennedy concurring in the judgment, upheld the ruling of the District Court in favor of the appellees that the alleged political gerrymandering was not unconstitutional. Subsequent to the ruling, partisan bias in redistricting increased dramatically in the 2010 redistricting round.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in Pennsylvania</span> Overview about redistricting in Pennsylvania

Redistricting in Pennsylvania refers to the decennial process of redrawing state legislative and federal congressional districts in Pennsylvania.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1992 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas</span> 1992 House elections in Texas

The 1992 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas occurred on November 3, 1992, to elect the members of the state of Texas's delegation to the United States House of Representatives. Texas had thirty seats in the House, apportioned according to the 1990 United States census.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2002 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas</span> 2002 House elections in Texas

The 2002 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas occurred on November 5, 2002, to elect the members of the state of Texas's delegation to the United States House of Representatives. Texas had thirty-two seats in the House, apportioned according to the 2000 United States census. The state gained two seats in reapportionment. Democrats narrowly maintained control of the Texas House of Representatives after the 2000 election after heavily emphasizing it as necessary to protect the party from a potential Republican gerrymander. During the 2001 regular session, the divided legislature failed to pass any redistricting plans. Congressional redistricting fell to the courts in Balderas v. State of Texas after no special session was called to address redistricting. While the court's initial map appeared to benefit Republicans, the final maps ordered for the 2002 elections were seen as beneficial to Democrats.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gerrymandering in the United States</span> Setting electoral district boundaries to favor specific political interests in legislative bodies

Gerrymandering is the practice of setting boundaries of electoral districts to favor specific political interests within legislative bodies, often resulting in districts with convoluted, winding boundaries rather than compact areas. The term "gerrymandering" was coined after a review of Massachusetts's redistricting maps of 1812 set by Governor Elbridge Gerry noted that one of the districts looked like a mythical salamander.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 United States redistricting cycle</span>

The 2020 United States redistricting cycle is in progress following the completion of the 2020 United States census. In all fifty states, various bodies are re-drawing state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives are also drawing new districts for that legislative body.

Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering. Other forms of gerrymandering based on racial or ethnic grounds had been deemed unconstitutional, and while the Supreme Court had identified that extreme partisan gerrymandering could also be unconstitutional, the Court had not agreed on how this could be defined, leaving the question to lower courts to decide. That issue was later resolved in Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the Court decided that partisan gerrymanders presented a nonjusticiable political question.

REDMAP is a project of the Republican State Leadership Committee of the United States to increase Republican control of congressional seats as well as state legislatures, largely through determination of electoral district boundaries. The project has made effective use of partisan gerrymandering, by relying on previously unavailable mapping software such as Maptitude to improve the precision with which district lines are strategically drawn. The strategy was focused on swing blue states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin where there was a Democratic majority but which they could swing towards Republican with appropriate redistricting. The project was launched in 2010 and estimated to have cost the Republican party around US$30 million.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1982 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas</span>

The 1982 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas occurred on November 2, 1982, to elect the members of the state of Texas's delegation to the United States House of Representatives. Texas had twenty-seven seats in the House, up three from the 1970s, apportioned according to the 1980 United States census.

<i>League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania</i> 2018 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case regarding gerrymandering

League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al.—abbreviated League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth—was a decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on gerrymandering, concerning the power of the Pennsylvania General Assembly to draw maps based on partisan advantage. The Court ruled that the maps adopted by the Republican controlled legislature in 2011 was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under the Constitution of Pennsylvania.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in Wisconsin</span>

Redistricting in Wisconsin is the process by which boundaries are redrawn for municipal wards, Wisconsin State Assembly districts, Wisconsin State Senate districts, and Wisconsin's congressional districts. Redistricting typically occurs—as in other U.S. states—once every decade, usually in the year after the decennial United States census. According to the Wisconsin Constitution, redistricting in Wisconsin follows the regular legislative process, it must be passed by both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature and signed by the Governor of Wisconsin—unless the Legislature has sufficient votes to override a gubernatorial veto. Due to political gridlock, however, it has become common for Wisconsin redistricting to be conducted by courts. The 1982, 1992, and 2002 legislative maps were each created by panels of United States federal judges.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in Texas</span>

Texas House of Representatives districts, Texas Senate districts, Texas Board of Education districts, and Texas's congressional districts are redistricted once every decade, usually in the year after the decennial United States census. According to the Texas Constitution, redistricting in Texas follows the regular legislative process; it must be passed by both houses of the Texas Legislature and signed by the governor of Texas—unless the legislature has sufficient votes to override a gubernatorial veto. Like many other states in the American South after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, federal judges and the United States Supreme Court have struck down Texas's congressional and legislative districts on multiple occasions, including in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.

References

  1. "2002 Election Statistics". Archived from the original on September 7, 2009. Retrieved September 10, 2009.
  2. "Cases and Codes". Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. Retrieved June 20, 2010.
  3. 1 2 "Justices Back Most G.O.P. Changes to Texas Districts". The New York Times. June 28, 2006.
  4. , League of United Latin American Citizens, et al. v. Perry, Governor of Texas, et al. 2006
  5. Bickerstaff, Steve (2007). Lines in the Sand: Congressional Redistricting in Texas and the Downfall of Tom Delay. University of Texas Press. p. 46. ISBN   978-0-292-71474-8.
  6. Bickerstaff, Steve (2007). Lines in the Sand: Congressional Redistricting in Texas and the Downfall of Tom Delay. University of Texas Press. p. 49. ISBN   978-0-292-71474-8.
  7. Toobin, Jeffrey (February 6, 2006). "Drawing the Line – Will Tom Delay's Redistricting in Texas Cost Him His Seat?". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 6, 2006.
  8. Paul Burka, Texas Monthly, May 2006
  9. 1 2 3 4 Eggen, Dan (December 2, 2005). "Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 20, 2010.
  10. "Texas 2004 Election Results". The Washington Post. GOP 3,833,932; Dems 2,709,749; Others 217, 460
  11. Castro, April (June 29, 2006). "July 14 deadline set on redistricting plans". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved June 20, 2010.
  12. Bickerstaff, Steve (2007). Lines in the Sand: Congressional Redistricting in Texas and the Downfall of Tom Delay. University of Texas Press. pp. 98–101. ISBN   978-0-292-71474-8.