ACS recently published a paper by Ron Klain, former Chief of Staff to Vice-President Al Gore.  In it, he argues that gerrymandering always hurts progressives, even when the district lines are draw by liberals to elect other liberals.  According to Klain, progressives thrive when "citizens can unite to combat the influence of powerful forces in the political arena," but gerrymandering divides voters into "districts that do not respect the lines of traditional political subdivisions, and do not represent a true community of interest."

In other words, Klain argues that gerrymandering hurts the grassroots because it places district boundaries between voters of similar interests.  These boundaries prevent collective action, giving an advantage to conservatives.

An excerpt from the paper, entitled Success Changes Nothing: The 2006 Election Results and the Undiminished Need for a Progressive Response to Political Gerrymandering, is below the fold.

According to several sources, Brent Wilkes and Kyle 'Dusty' Foggo, are about to be indicted for conspiracy and honest services (mail/wire) fraud.

This could prove interesting because more and more pigeons are squawking. Cunningham, Wade and probably these 4 people are all giving testimony in this case(s). Wilkes has already defaulted on his homes and had sold the corporate office of his now-defunct company.

One can only wonder at the developments coming down the Justice Parkway. I wish that Virgil Goode, my rotten congressman, was in this crowd, but I guess he and us will have to wait another month or two (or three). As long as it comes sometime before June of 2008. More on that subject soon, as I interview (by email) a prospective candidate for the seat Virgil has. (5th CD)

Anyone have any favorite Foggo limousine and hooker stories you would like to relate again here for us?

I liked the part where the #3 or 4 at the CIA was drunk on his ass, and riding around in the back of a limousine, picking up congressmen (and only men) ready for a good time with some hookers, all on our dime.

For the past year, my exhusband hasn't paid child support.  This is now surprise to me, he's self employed.  What is a surprise is the new e-QuickPay program.  Why you might ask?  Before I tell you, let me first add, in my previous life, I worked as a child support enforcement officer.  Having worked in the field, the last thing I wanted, ever, was to be reliant on the State of Ohio to forward my ex-husband's payments to me.  So, ready to follow me now?

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases which will decide whether or not the Constitution forbids school board from voluntarily racially integrating public schools.  According to two civil rights attorneys involved in the cases, these cases will decide whether or not school districts are permitted to "fulfill the promise of Brown v. Board of Education," or whether instead the Court will "turn the command of the Equal Protection Clause on its head."

Professor Geoffrey Stone, a Chicago Law professor and advocate of preserving civil liberties in wartime (and a member of ACS' board), has published a list of 10 values which he belives "define 'liberal' today."  ACS was pleased to publish his list on ACSBlog, and I am republishing it below for the DKos community:

This week, the American Constitution Society is running a five part Supreme Court Preview at our blog.  Previous installments have discussed a case which will decide whether a woman whose health is endangered by her pregnancy has a constitutional right to an abortion (diaried here), and whether the EPA is legally required to enact more robust regulations against global warming (diaried here).

Today's installment focuses on public school segregation.  According to today's briefing, two upcoming Supreme Court cases will determine whether or not the Constitution forbids school districts from voluntarily choosing to desegregate:

This week, the American Constitution Society is running a five part Supreme Court Preview at our blog.  Yesterday, we discussed two cases which will decide whether a woman whose health is endangered by her pregnancy has a constitutional right to an abortion (diaried here).  Today, we switch gears to global warming.

The state of Massachusetts has sued the EPA, hoping to force the federal government to enact more robust regulations against global warming emissions.  As Doug Kendall explains, how the Supreme Court resolves this case will have a significant impact on the environment and environmental law:

The American Constitution Society (my employer) is running a five part Supreme Court preview at our blog.  The first installment discusses Gonzales v. Carhart & Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, two cases which consider whether a woman, whose health is endangered by her pregnancy, has a constitutional right to a safe abortion.  As authors Pamela Harris & Dawn Johnsen explain, the Supreme Court has tread this ground before:

The Hamdan decision rejects this fast-and-loose attitude to the Separation of Powers. It endorses careful scrutiny of the precise powers delegated by Congress to the executive branch. The Court thus properly rejected Justice Thomas's extraordinary idea that the "structural advantages attendant to the Executive Branch" in war-time--aspects of executive power that make that branch the "most dangerous" to individual liberty today--merit a hands-off approach by the courts. (Ironically, Justice Thomas refers to Justice Stevens' "unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare"; but Stevens served in the U.S. Navy from 1942 to 1945, during World War II. Thomas's official bio, by contrast, contains no experience of military service.

From Aziz Huq, Associate Counsel of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, via ACSBlog.