UPDATE: I was going to post this last Friday, but thought it had a bit too much tin foil to have merit. After today's Supreme Court ruling, I've changed my mind. It did not ocur to me they would strike down just a portion of the plan. When I saw the decision, somehow this didn't seem so crazy.
Last Wednesday, the Republicans postponed a vote on renewing the Voting Rights Act. The leadership cited the concerns of several southern lawmakers over certain provisions in the bill. According to an AP report, this was an abrupt change of plans. There is the definite possibility the renewal will not come up again this year.
No big surprise at the news. I didn't give it much more thought except to wonder why the sudden problem with the renewal that was already a "done deal"...
until I saw an article in the WSJ (Sorry, no link - subscription required) about the imminent decision by the Supreme Court on the Texas Redistricting Plan. It would seem the Voting Rights act could have some serious repercussions on redistricting no matter the court decides for both the Republicans and the Democrats.
A short history of the case.
If the Supreme Court finds the redistricting plan legal, the Republicans will immediately push through other redistricting plans in every state they control. They have already done it in Georgia to dilute Democratic strength in certain areas without waiting for the Supreme court decision. Just think of the possiblities! If the "Diebold Project" doesn't work out, here is a great backup.
"If we win, it will affirm there's no ban on mid-decade redistricting and there's no serious constraint against political gerrymanders," said Michael Carvin, a Republican lawyer involved in the Texas case." ... Squeezing more Democratic leaning districts from the map would most certainly require splitting minority voters into multiple districts, undercutting their strength as a voting block. "They would really have to violate to Voting Rights Act to change the map."
So why don't they make sure the Voting Rights Act is renewed? Well, just in case their packed Supreme Court doesn't do the right thing, it could still strike down the Texas Redistricting plan because it violates the Voting Rights Act. It seems during oral arguments, Justice Kennedy was interested in the arguments the plan diminished Hispanic voting strength in South Texas.
If it is upheld, the Democrats will try the same tactic but they have far few opportunities than the Republicans.
"You need a place where the Democrats are fully in control and where there are more seats to be squeezed out if the districts are redrawn," says Richard Pildes, a New York University law professor.
To date, we have not been nearly as successful as the Republicans in this arena. IMO, the Democrats see redistricting as an incumbency protection plan regardless of party.
The timing also is suspicious. This was decided behind closed doors when all eyes were on the Senate and the Democrat's Iraq withdrawl amendments. It was not the news of the day. You know, the usual Republican tactic of misdirection
Yes, the Voting Rights act does not expire until 2007, so the Supreme Court could use it to strike down this case. If it expires, what is to stop the Republicans from trying this again in 2008? They have been known to lay the groundwork years in advance for many of their more egregious ideas.