Comments on: Fascinating Error in the Texas Redistricting Case: Part I http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/fascinating-error-in-the-texas-redistricting-case-part-i/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Daniel http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/fascinating-error-in-the-texas-redistricting-case-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-10014 Daniel Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:22:47 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/fascinating-error-in-the-texas-redistricting-case-part-i/#comment-10014 Such an idealist, Simon. It's all about power. Who wants to put in all that work and effort to get power only to have it swept away by the random movements of people across time and distance. Those who have power want to keep and normally will go to great lengths to do so. Such an idealist, Simon. It’s all about power. Who wants to put in all that work and effort to get power only to have it swept away by the random movements of people across time and distance. Those who have power want to keep and normally will go to great lengths to do so.

]]> By: Simon http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/fascinating-error-in-the-texas-redistricting-case-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-10013 Simon Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:28:20 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/fascinating-error-in-the-texas-redistricting-case-part-i/#comment-10013 This is truly a sordid business. If it were left to me, demographics would be a dirty word in redistricting; in my districting should be done in as random and arbitrary a fashion as possible, taking no account of race, income, or any other socioeconomic factor. The criteria at play should be reasonable parity of numbers, see <i>Karcher</i>, 462 U.S. at 766 (1983) (White, dissenting), and geography (particularly compactness and contiguity). It is a matter of bemusement and embarrasment that we have turned the Equal Protection Clause on its head; a guarantee that race will not be a factor used to discriminate (in the proper sense of the word) has been transformed into a guarantee that it must. This is truly a sordid business. If it were left to me, demographics would be a dirty word in redistricting; in my districting should be done in as random and arbitrary a fashion as possible, taking no account of race, income, or any other socioeconomic factor. The criteria at play should be reasonable parity of numbers, see Karcher, 462 U.S. at 766 (1983) (White, dissenting), and geography (particularly compactness and contiguity). It is a matter of bemusement and embarrasment that we have turned the Equal Protection Clause on its head; a guarantee that race will not be a factor used to discriminate (in the proper sense of the word) has been transformed into a guarantee that it must.

]]> By: federalist http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/fascinating-error-in-the-texas-redistricting-case-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-10012 federalist Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:35:16 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/fascinating-error-in-the-texas-redistricting-case-part-i/#comment-10012 That is, the opinion constitutes a move away from essentializing racial identity: merely because a district is majority minority, is geographically compact, and minority voters cohesively prefer black candidates, the VRA is not satisfied unless those voters also have substantive interests, such as economic interests, that have some commonality or, as noted above, are "coherent" in some sense. As Justice Kennedy puts it, "We do a disservice to these important goals [of the VRA] by failing to account for the differences between people of the same race." To those who understand voting-rights law, that is a statement of profound significance that reflects a dramatic change in direction. I have to confess that I don't know a whole lot about voting rights, but doesn't the above sound kinda similar to crude statements that people aren't "real" blacks or "real" Hispanics. And if we're taking into consideration factors other than race, then aren't there Constitutional issues about that application of the VRA. That is, the opinion constitutes a move away from essentializing racial identity: merely because a district is majority minority, is geographically compact, and minority voters cohesively prefer black candidates, the VRA is not satisfied unless those voters also have substantive interests, such as economic interests, that have some commonality or, as noted above, are “coherent” in some sense. As Justice Kennedy puts it, “We do a disservice to these important goals [of the VRA] by failing to account for the differences between people of the same race.” To those who understand voting-rights law, that is a statement of profound significance that reflects a dramatic change in direction.

I have to confess that I don’t know a whole lot about voting rights, but doesn’t the above sound kinda similar to crude statements that people aren’t “real” blacks or “real” Hispanics. And if we’re taking into consideration factors other than race, then aren’t there Constitutional issues about that application of the VRA.

]]>