Is Tom Delay The Next Enron?

[editor]

Two weeks ago there were reports out of Washington about investigations into Sugar Land's favorite senator. Last week all of the television networks ran pieces on apparent ethics violations. Today his name was on the front page of the New York Times again. It feels like he's imploding before our eyes. Maybe the man who tried to kill rail in Houston is getting a little karma backlash.

[ricco67]

It's Newt Gingrich all over again. He who lives in glass houses.....

Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

And people wonder why I vote independent...

Ricco

[Talbot]

Yes! Hopefully they get rid of his ass.

[tamtagon]

Is it too much to ask someone to post the articles here? Living in Georgia, I've heard all about Newt, but all I know about Delay is that some people hate his policies almost as much as others support him.

[ricco67]

Yes, why don't we inform him about (dis)honorable Delay.

Let's start up a new topic in the politic section and post some articles from various places. I'll hunt after lunch.

Ricco

[pineda]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Politics - Kristen Mack

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DeLay gets attention of voters and critics

By KRISTEN MACK, 10/07/04, Houston Chronicle

Tom DeLay has been out and about more lately because he has some new people to meet.

The House majority leader has been spending extra time in his district because last year's redistricting

[tamtagon]

It is calling on Republican candidates to return money they received from DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority political action committee (ARMPAC).

Personally, I think the Democrats are equally dubious as Republicans - an environment forced by today's political power struggles, but it's just too easy to rename DeLay's group (I'm probably behind the curve with this jab):

Americans for a Republican Majority political interest trust - ARMPIT.

[westguy]

DeLay wanted NASA in the last reredistricting - it was taken from Nick Lampson's district. I personally do not see why someone's whose beliefs are so anti-science and exploration should represent the pinnacle of America's space technology.

[editor]

Because it gives him a large government bureaucracy to kiss his butt.

[bachanon]

lest anyone forget pre 1980's politics, the democrats ran the state of texas. the democrats created the laws that allowed tom delay and the dominate party to redistrict according to their fancy. there was virtually no media coverage or outcry when the democrats redistricted in the early eighties to secure their hold on the state for a few more years. now that republicans are using tools created by the dems it's abominable, criminal! it's actually hilarious to see how little people remember.

if i had my "drothers", as grandma used to say, the republicans would have worked to eliminate undue influence on such things making the process less complicated and more fair (more directly connected to the popular/representative

vote).

The House majority leader has been spending extra time in his district because last year's redistricting

[dbigtex56]

bachanon, it's my understanding that states are required to re-draw districts every ten years, based on the most current U.S. Census data. I also believe that this has been the practice in Texas until DeLay's re-districting (gerrymandering), only 3 (?) years after the most recent redistricting, and that this is unprecedented in Texas history.

If I'm mistaken, please correct me; did the Democrats ever redraw districts without new census data?

Regardless of ones political affiliation, I believe that a representative government should be exactly that - representative of the voting population. Mr. DeLay obviously believes otherwise.

[westguy]

The recent redistricting only served to completely sever the constituency from their representatives in Congress, so there's no fairness about it. Sugar Land under Tom DeLay has almost nothing in common with southeast Houston, nor does Culberson and Montrose, or the Austin reps, who now live out of the metro area. It's not just Democrats who've been hurt by this - rural Republicans have lost out to the powerful suburbs around the major Texas cities. Even in the 80's, Republican areas were still well-represented.

[bachanon]

it is my understanding that if the governor calls a special session specifically for redistricting, especially if the redistricting has not been done by the legislature, the state legislature will not be challenged unless certain race factors or minorities have not been considered. in fact, it appears that since the texas legislature writes the redistricting into law and unless federal laws concerning minority voting rights are violated, the feds have little interest in fighting it.

this is not unprecedented.

a link is at the bottom in case this format is a pain.

Chapter 1

The Texas Redistricting Process

I. Redistricting: A Legislative Function

A. Redistricting Authority

Section 28, Article III, Texas Constitution, requires the Texas Legislature to apportion both

houses of the legislature at its first regular session after publication of the federal decennial census.

Without this requirement, the legislature would be responsible for legislative redistricting under the

plenary legislative authority granted by Section 1, Article III, Texas Constitution. The Texas Supreme

Court has stated that section grants to the legislature

[bachanon]

one more point showing that the case was not unprecedented. if the redistricting were "unprecedented" then the higher courts would have wanted to "make" precedence for this particular case.

Monday, April 19, 2004

US Supreme Court votes 9/0 to AFFIRM first Texas redistricting case, but the Houston Chronicle claims the Court "refused to hear" it

In the space of a two-sentence lede in a story tonight headlined "U.S. Supreme Court hands defeat to Texas Democrats," the Houston Chronicle's R.G. Ratcliffe managed both to demonstrate his liberal bias and to completely misreport what the Court did today about Texas redistricting:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that Texas Senate Democrats did not have their rights violated when the Republican leadership ran over them in a push to pass congressional redistricting last year.

The high court refused to hear a three-judge panel decision against Senate Democrats last year when they unsuccessfully sued to halt a redistricting debate.

"Ran over them"? And some people seriously ask, What liberal media bias?

If this were an op-ed, or even something labeled "news analysis," then that sort of value judgment might be acceptable. An equally slanted version of this sentence from the opposite (that is, conservative) perspective might read:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that Texas Senate Democrats did not have their rights violated when the Republican leadership finally rescued the principle of majority-vote representative democracy from legislative anarchy in their efforts to meet the Texas Legislature's constitutional duty to pass a congressional redistricting plan last year.

I think that's actually closer to the truth. But how about something that's factual without implying any value judgments or grinding any political axes, like this:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that Texas Senate Democrats did not have their rights violated when the Republican leadership overcame the Dems' lengthy procedural efforts to block a simple majority-rule vote in the Republican leadership's push to pass congressional redistricting last year.

Having demonstrated his obvious political bias in his choice of loaded language for his first sentence, however, Mr. Ratcliffe proceeded to completely misreport what the Supreme Court actually did!

Any first-year law student who's studied basic citation form or gotten a passing grade in his federal procedure class

[editor]

Ran across this ad on the New York Times web site today. Interesting.

http://view.atdmt.com/SHC/iview/nwyrkcfe00...23.51.09?click=

[ricco67]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/e...outlook/2846658

Oct. 14, 2004, 12:44AM

What goes around comes around, sort of, for DeLay

By ROBERT D. NOVAK

''They're trying to make Tom DeLay into Jim Wright. They've stolen our playbook," declared an outspoken deputy whip at a recent House Republican leadership meeting. That implicit bipartisan sharing of responsibility for what has become of the House of Representatives was not a popular message for most GOP lawmakers. But it accurately portrays today'ssituation.

ADVERTISEMENT

The "admonishment" of Majority Leader DeLay by the House Ethics Committee recalls, in cloakrooms of both parties, the series of events 15 years ago. Wright's forced resignation as House speaker on ethical charges was followed by lost congressional seats and, five years later, Republicans taking control of the House. The same pattern is devoutly desired by today's Democrats

[tamtagon]

I cannot help but conclude that too many of our political leaders go about their lives operating outside/above the law as often as a career criminal.

[dbigtex56]

No offense, bachanon, but it appears you've taken a page from W. C. Fields' playbook: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****."

The first lengthy post regarding state and federal law as it applies to redistricting in Texas seems credible, and I mean to read it in its entirety just as soon as I graduate from law school (note to self: enroll in law school).

The second one, by some blogger named Beldar, may very well be the work of a genuine Conehead. I would be very cautious about relying on his 'facts', and I'm frankly surprised you would quote such a dubious source.

We all know how to Google, and how to cut-and-paste. As soon as I feel like finding something worth quoting, I'll share it with y'all.

[bachanon]

dbigtex, sorry i didn't take the time to research and regurgitate the facts in a manner that is pleasing. maybe i shouldn't be on HAIF while at work.

your understanding that the federal government requires states to redistrict after each census is correct; however, states have the right to call a special session to redistrict under specific circumstances. delay's "gerrymander" as you call it actually eliminated a past gerrymander. it was presented in the press as "unprecedented" and possibly illegal, when actually, it followed the letter and spirit of the law as was found by the higher court when it chose not to hear the appeal. the appeal was unsubstantiated.

my former rant about dems creating the law that delay now uses is true; however, he didn't use the law to make a more populous republican or white district.

i had not read the law concerning redistricting until this week. i'm now more confident in my conclusions concerning this issue than before.

[ricco67]

Bach,

You forgot to end your post with "So there!"

Ricco

[bachanon]

did i sound overconfident or overexcited? i'm sorry. maybe it's this cold medication my dr. prescribed. i haven't had enough oxygen to my brain for several days. my apologies, dbigtex.

[ricco67]

No, but you proved your point rather well, therefore the ending of your post should have been, "So there!"

Ricco

[dbigtex56]

bachanon, I took no offense at your earlier post, but appreciate your gracious apology.

And now, just to show how I don't always practice what I preach, may I Google, cut-and-paste something? This article is from Watching Justice, an association with which I'm unfamiliar. However, the facts seem to be put forward in a clear, unemotional and (I presume) accurate fashion:

Texas Congressional Redistricting: The Texas congressional redistricting was unusual because of its timing. In 2001, a panel of federal judges drew a redistricting map after the Texas legislature (then evenly split between Democrats and Republicans) failed to agree on new district lines based on the 2000 Census numbers. In 2003, the Republicans gained control of both houses of the Texas legislature. Even though there was a map in place, the Republican lawmakers redrew the districts and created a new map, heavily favoring the Republicans and targeting white Democratic incumbents. The Democratic lawmakers staged several "walkouts," moving temporarily to hotels in Oklahoma and New Mexico to ensure that the legislature would not have enough Members present for a quorum, and would therefore be unable to vote on the new map. In the end, the Republican plan passed in October 2003.

The Department of Justice precleared the plan in December 2003, even though there were arguments that the plan broke up minority communities and placed them in conservative, white districts. In January 2004 the issue went before the federal court in Austin. That court also upheld the Republican plan. The Democrats asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case on an emergency appeal and on January 16, 2004, the Supreme Court refused. [3] The Democrats subsequently filed a non-emergency appeal to the Court, and the Court again refused to review the matter. [4]

In addition, fourteen Democratic U.S. Representatives from Texas asked the Department to release its internal decision memo on the Texas redistricting plan. The Representatives alleged that career attorneys at Justice recommended that the Department object to the Republicans' redistricting plan, but were overruled by political appointees at the Department. The Democratic Representatives contend the requested memo would indicate whether their allegations are correct. The Department refused to release the memo, stating that it contains internal deliberations and is thus exempt from public disclosure laws such as the Freedom of Information Act. [5]

Link with footnotes

bach, where you and I disagree is that I believe the redistricting was drawn specifically to divide the districts of popular, effective state representatives because they were Democrats. The court decision which validates the district map was decided by (Republican) political appointees.

This sort of thing is not new to me; having lived in the Montrose for the past 23 years, I've seen our neighborhood redistricted into mincemeat at a local, state and national level. I somehow doubt if you'll have that problem anytime soon in The Woodlands. I'm frankly envious.

So far as gerrymandering, it's a given. We can argue back and forth about which party is worse; the fact is they're both terrible. The current system is so deeply flawed that I think it's time to examine if there's a better way to send representatives to Washington who truly represent the diverse interests of a state.

[tamtagon]

So far as gerrymandering, it's a given. We can argue back and forth about which party is worse; the fact is they're both terrible. The current system is so deeply flawed that I think it's time to examine if there's a better way to send representatives to Washington who truly represent the diverse interests of a state.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

word

[bachanon]

note to self: the more the media agrees with me, the more i become complacent and uninvolved. if everyone agrees with me, does that mean i'm right?

dbigtex' statement concerning the system being flawed makes me wonder...........can it ever be perfect or make everyone happy? is it the flexibility of our laws that make them longlasting? is it the interpretation of a law that makes it true? should perry homes exist? (oops wrong thread)

i'm not sure if i have a problem with the "popular" party having some "wings". yet, i say that easily now that republicans are in control. i had a different feeling in 1983. (the most objective you may ever hear me...)

[pineda]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DeLay rebuked a third time in just seven days!

By: MARK EVANGELISTA , Citizen Staff 10/13/2004

The House ethics committee admonished Majority Leader Tom DeLay on Oct. 6 for the third time in seven days for his involvement with an energy-industry fundraiser and use of government resources for a political undertaking.

While DeLay was not found guilty of any charges raised by freshman Congressman Chris Bell, a letter implements the determinations made by the Committee on Standards of Conduct that:

DeLay "created an appearance that donors were being provided special access" with Westar executives before a vote on energy legislation; and,

Actions by DeLay "raises serious concerns under House standards of conduct that preclude use of governmental resources for a political undertaking."

In the letter signed by Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) and Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), the committee warned DeLay that it had the authority "to deal with any given act or accumulation of acts which, in the judgement of the committee, are severe enough to reflect discredit on Congress."

DeLay accepted the committee's findings while placing blame on the complaint on his political enemies, Rep. Chris Bell and the Democratic Party, despite the bipartisan findings of the committee.

In a statement, a less than contrite DeLay said the committee "has done the right thing in dismissing Mr. Bell's embellished complaint."

"Four years, Democrats have hurled relentless personal attacks at me, hoping to tie my hands and smear my name," he said. "All have fallen short, not because of insufficient venom but because of insufficient merit."

Two days later, DeLay's chief counsel sent a letter asking the House rules committee to review the ethics committee's procedures and findings in the matter.

Ed Bethune, who also represented former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, challenged the findings and asked Chairman David Dreier (R-Ga.) to determine whether a complaint by Bell violated House rules "because Bell coordinated his complaint with an outside group."

Bethune said Bell acted improperly by employing an outside advocacy group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, to compile the complaint against Delay.

The same public interest group that called for President Clinton to step down also called for the same from DeLay.

Judicial Watch called DeLay's actions regarding the vote on Medicare "inappropriate and unacceptable."

Emphasizing character and integrity, DeLay opponent and Democratic nominee Richard Morrison said that if for any reason that he were to be admonished by the Congress, he would resign the same day.

"I assure you that it has sunken in that (DeLay) needs to take responsibility for his actions," Morrison said to an audience of NASA workers and space contractors at Sweet Mesquite restaurant on Friday.

"I hope he examines his conscience."

The House ethics committee said the allegations by Bell about DeLay's 2002 appearance at a gathering of energy executives did not warrant a formal investigation.

But the committee went on to say that his actions "raise an appearance of impropriety under House standards of conduct."

Action on Bell's second allegation that DeLay used a political action group to "funnel" money has been deferred since Travis County in Austin is investigating the Texans for a Republican Majority.

The third count against Delay was for the use of FAA resources to locate Democrats from the Texas House of Representatives to avoid a vote on redistricting.

DeLay's explanation that the same flight plan information that his staff member got from the FAA was available on the Internet wasn't fully acceptable by the committee.

"However the issues discussed here have arisen because you did not obtain the information from one of the commercial databases, but instead you obtained it from FAA databases using the resources of FAA personnel," the committee's letter said.

DeLay said that he was called into the issue because of a "legitimate law enforcement issue" with which the committee took issue.

"The invocation of federal executive branch resources in a partisan dispute before a state legislative body is a different matter entirely, and such action raises serious concerns that are set out here," said the committee.

[deepsouthtexas]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/18/texas.re...reut/index.html

Supreme Court is considering the case.

[ricco67]

Court orders Texas redistricting review

Bitterly contested congressional map once again in question

Monday, October 18, 2004 Posted: 12:15 PM EDT (1615 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ordered Monday further consideration of a challenge by Democrats and minority groups to a controversial Republican-backed congressional redistricting plan in Texas.

The justices in a brief order granted an appeal by those challenging the plan and set aside a ruling by a federal three-judge panel in January that upheld the bitterly contested map.

The justices ordered further consideration by the federal panel in view of their ruling in April that upheld a Pennsylvania redistricting case. They did not elaborate further.

Those challenging the redistricting plan, which had been strongly supported by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, argued it was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and that it diluted the voting strength of minorities.

They challenged whether redistricting plans can be redrawn in the middle of the decade to maximize partisan advantage. Congressional districts usually are drawn once, early in the decade, right after the release of new U.S. census data.

After the 2000 census, the Texas Legislature failed to act on redistricting, and a court-drawn plan was adopted.

After months of turmoil, the redistricting plan advocated by Texas Republicans finally won approval last year in a third special session called by Republican Gov. Rick Perry. Democrats twice stymied efforts to adopt the plan by leaving the state and denying Republicans a quorum.

Those challenging the plan told the Supreme Court it shifted more than 8 million Texans into new districts and was designed for the Republicans to pick up as many as seven seats now held by Democrats in the House.

"The 2003 Texas congressional redistricting is proof that the redistricting process in this country has gone completely haywire," their attorneys said in asking the high court to reverse the ruling of the three-judge panel.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, urged the Supreme Court to summarily affirm the panel's ruling. "This case raises no new questions of fact or law," he said, adding that the questions presented are "insubstantial."

But the justices refused to summarily affirm the lower court's ruling.

[ricco67]

Maybe I'm a bit stupid...but most of this doesn't make a lick of sense when it comes to figuring out where the whole thing is heading to.

If the Supreme court is going to allow an appeal to take place, then where is the appeal going to go? State? What State?

I already know it's too late to matter in the elections next month, but where does the ruling land?

I hope Delay gets a nice big sopository out of this.

Ricco

[Subdude]

To me the scary thing about the redistricting wasn't just that it was done out-of-cycle, but that no one seemed to question much how it is done to begin with. The few states that have non-partisan electoral commissions to draw district boundaries have a lot more competitive elections. I'm sure people have read how due to gerrymandering, the US House has less turnover than the old Soviet politburo. It's pretty sad for us to run congressional elections this way and then go about preaching about democracy to other countries. There are other alternatives besides non-partisan commissions, such as dropping single-member districts or some form of proportional voting.