Texas Legislative outlaws
 

Link


If this was not on CNN, I would think that it was a joke.

________________________

AUSTIN, Texas (CNN) -- The political version of the Amber Alert was posted for 53 Texas legislators who fled the state Capitol to avoid a vote that could cost Democrats seven congressional seats.

Without the Democrats present, the Republican-controlled House does not have the two-thirds quorum needed for a vote on legislation to redraw congressional districts.

News reports late Monday quoted leaders of the missing Democrats as saying they are gathered across the state line in Ardmore, Oklahoma, out of reach of Texas Rangers who have been ordered to arrest them and return them to the House chamber.

A bulletin was posted Monday on the Texas Department of Public Safety Web site -- the same one used to alert citizens to missing children and wanted criminals -- asking for help in locating the missing lawmakers.

"The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) is asking the public for assistance in locating 53 Texas legislators who have disappeared," the bulletin read. "Anyone who has information regarding the current whereabouts of the legislators listed below is asked to call 1-800-525-5555."

"Under the Texas Constitution, the majority of members present in session in the House can vote to compel the presence of enough members to make a quorum," it read. "Members of the House did so this morning and directed the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House and the DPS to locate the absent members and bring them back to Austin."

The Web site then names the 53 missing Democrats.

A report in The Austin American-Statesman newspaper Tuesday morning said the group was gathered in the Holiday Inn near the Texas state line in Ardmore, Oklahoma, and that a news conference was planned for Tuesday.

Republicans took control of the Texas House in November for the first time since Reconstruction. With 88 Republican members in the 150-member body, they still need at least a dozen Democrats present for a quorum. Just three Democrats remained at the Capitol on Monday, the newspaper said.

I saw a reference to this scrolling across the bottom of the screen on ABC this morning, and thought it was a joke, or that I had misread it, or missed the first part of it. That's pathetic. Talk about putting your party ahead of your state.

they hate to give it up. Only had the power since Reconstruction.

Well this really paints a nice picture of our state. How long do they think this will work? Idiots. Senator, when they bring them back in chains, will you give them a smack for me? Please?

They won't get enough back in time. The bill is effectively dead most likely.

I don't which is worse - fleeing the state to prevent a quorum or using the Amber Alert system to find the legislators.

Was it a real Amber Alert? I took the line in story to be nothing more than a "hook."

I'm still debating about driving down to Ardmore (about 90 minutes away) to stand outside the Holiday Inn and give them hell.

Anybody wanna meet me there for lunch? :)

Cam--

Make sure you give them hospitality packs from the Chamber of Commerce--and plenty of good information for people interested in moving to OK. Oh, and lots of OU gear. I'm sure they will be very appreciative.

This part of the story made me think it was:

"A bulletin was posted Monday on the Texas Department of Public Safety Web site -- the same one used to alert citizens to missing children and wanted criminals -- asking for help in locating the missing lawmakers.

"The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) is asking the public for assistance in locating 53 Texas legislators who have disappeared," the bulletin read. "Anyone who has information regarding the current whereabouts of the legislators listed below is asked to call 1-800-525-5555."

They didn't use the highway alert system, but they did use the Web based one. It isn't as bad, but still pretty damn tacky.

Well if Tom Delay wasn't pushing to redistrict for a second time this wouldn't be happening. I don't know the specifics about this, but Colorado is also trying to redistrict a second time to cement a Repub advantage. I doubt the Repubs would sit still in Dem majority states.

They're all a bunch of chickens!! bock! bock!

To my knowledge this has never happened anywhere before, But IMHO, this should cause each of them to be fired. It just usurps the role that they vowed to take on for the people of their constituancy.

How far is Ardmore from Dallas? I'll bring the torches.

They seem to constantly do this in Maryland, where they redistrict parts of Baltimore city (probably over 90% democrat) with the neighboring counties. I don't think the Republicans can do a damned thing about it (the state has been controlled by Dems for decades).

are they serving chicken at the holiday inn?

Everybody say, CHICKEN!

Texas has been a Dem majority state for over 130 years.

If you look at point by point, I think they are acting in the best interests of their constituency:

A. They were obviously elected, which means the majority of their voters voted Democrat.

B. It is their jobs to do what is in the best interest of their constituents.

C. It is their judgment that whatever they are avoiding in some way hampers their ability to do what is in their constituents best interests.

Is a bullshit move? Sure. But they are acting in the best interests in their constituents by not partaking in things that may be detrimental to their constituents.

Oh, and all of Congress should be kicked out because they shut down back in the 90's?

Don't worry, it doesn't make
Texas look any worse. ;)

A funny story related to this... I'm talking about this on the air this morning and I said, "You know why they went to Ardmore, don't you? They couldn't the additional political fallout from going anyplace that's fun."

30 seconds later someone from Ardmore called and bitched out my producer.

"There's lots of fun stuff to do here. We have lakes... and... you can fish on the lake.... and waterski.... and we have lakes."

Yep. Party central.

As I recall, they shut down because they couldn't agree on a budget, and thus the government couldn't pay to open any of its offices.

very different circumstances

Easy,

By your logic, then acting in the best interests of your constituents is a bullshit move. :)

I fall on the side of this is ridiculous, and I'd be saying it if it were Republican legislators. These legislators aren't getting paid to hang out in Ardmore, Oklahoma. They're getting paid to work at the Capitol. If they want to reverse the redistricting taking place, I suggest they get to work on restoring that Democratic majority they've enjoyed for so long.

I'm pretty sure legislators in either Oregon or Washington did the same thing last year to avoid voting on a redistricting plan. I've been involved and believe me, there is nothing more political than redistricting.

...says the man from Wisconsin.

John Winger: "C'mon, it's Czechoslovakia! We zip in, we pick 'em up, we zip right out again! We're not going to Moscow. It's Czechoslovakia! It's like we're going into Wisconsin!"


Russel Zitzky: "I got the shit kicked out of me in Wisconsin once."

To the best of my knowledge, isn't this correct?

Members of the Legislature, and all other elected officers, before they enter upon the duties of their offices, shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I, _______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of ___________________ of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God."


Doesn't sound like they are faithfully executing thier duties of thier office to me.

To draw a new map after a redistricting plan has been lawfully created and used in an election is almost unprecedented. The only similar occurences I can think of are maps in North Carolina and a few other states which were changed because of lawsuits against racial gerrymandering.

I've never heard of a legislature passing a plan in a purely political move like this. My guess would be that even if the plan is passed, it will be tied up in the courts for a long time and probably never be used.

an email a friend of mine who works for one of those democrats sent me:

I think the same kind of thing happened in Minnesota a year or two ago in representatives hiding to prevent an issue from being voted on, though I don't think any kind of alert was put out.

I think we should secede.

as a democrat, i like what they did. this was a power-grabbing move, plain and simple, and taking time away from the most important session in recent texas history

fucking republicans

i don't like it because I see it as a possible new kind of veto. There is no state that I know of that has a super majority. I could see this becoming common place now, and I think that it is just wrong.

Should the state be redistrited, I have no idea, but this is an illegal way to go about fighting it. They just as easily could have had a fillabuster and fit in with the curent laws.

The Oregon Democrats disappeared for 5 days at the end of session in 2001 to prevent a redistricting plan from being passed. The Democrat (I think) Secretary of State then drew a plan which was more favorable for the Dems.

the GOP gained control of the Texas House for the first time since Reconstruction.

So, what have the GOP been doing in Texas the last 130 plus years, biding their time? Waiting for just the right CENTURY to make the long anticipated power grabbing move?

they are trying to remove any democratic representation. they are not even faking bi-partisanship anymore

"So, what have the GOP been doing in Texas the last 130 plus years, biding their time? Waiting for just the right CENTURY to make the long anticipated power grabbing move?"

uh, no, they couldn't do this as a minority, obviously

BTW- House Speaker Craddick left in 1971 with several others to avoid a vote. I guess then it was justified because he was for it?

One thing I find really funny is how both sides have taken time out in their rants to bash Oklahoma. I heard one reporter on CNN asked whether the Dems will stay in OK until the session is over. He replied, "I don't think any Texan could stay in OK that long." I wonder if the Repubs could get the Dems back in state by proposing a resolution to fomarmally declare OK as a hell hole?

Didn't the democrats in Georgia go nuts re-districting themselves a couple of years ago? I pay very little attention to state level politics but I thought I read something about the current governer trying to get the redistricting repealed or something... anyone have details? Interesting stuff. Maybe the Georgia republicans couldn't find their way out of the state... or maybe they couldn't figure out which was worse, South Carolina, Alabama or Florida to go hide in.

Because of course, all of the other issues that the Democrats would like to see brought up can be voted on from Oklahoma.

Not only are they blocking a redistricting plan that they feel is wrong, they're also stopping hundreds of other bills from being heard.

Yep... it's all the Republicans fault.

Glad Cam's finally come around.

Definite submittal for QotM.

So during the last 130 years of Dem control, the Republicans should have just moved to Oklahoma until they got control to stop the Dems from passing bills that aren't good for the voters who voted Republicans in.

I think the key is "Everybody move to Oklahoma". Then all of our problems will be solved.

Well, except for that overcrowding issue.

No thank you. Going to visit my grandparents in Stillwater is enough Oklahoma time for me...

No, this wasn't power-grabbing. They HAVE the power, given to them by the voters. They aren't doing anything that democrats haven't done for the past decades that they controlled the legislature.

Bottom line: suck it up and do the job you were elected to do, even if it means voting for a losing proposition. That's their job - it's not to run away and pout because they aren't getting their way anymore. The "fucking republicans" have been dealing with being on the short end of the stick for decades. Maybe if the democrats didn't have their priorities so screwed up to begin with, they wouldn't have put themselves in the position of being so out of touch with what the majority of their constituents want, that they find it necessary to crawl into a hole in another state rather than face the truth.

Like I said, pathetic.

This debate almost could mirror the Teacher Unions one.... you expect the Democratic representatives to participate in giving away their own jobs? That's essentially what many of them would be doing.

Complain all you want, but I think redistricting every couple of years is ludicrous.

Here's a good article on the subject from fairvote.org:

Christian Science Monitor
Redistricting abuses voter trust
By Rob Richie and Steven Hill
January 7, 2002

Our elected leaders have been quick to applaud Americans' renewed civic pride in the wake of Sept. 11. Yet behind closed doors, far too many are betraying voters' trust by manipulating our winner-take-all electoral rules to protect their incumbency.

Although not well understood by many voters, the most egregious tool of incumbent protection is redistricting. Whoever controls redistricting - technically the state legislatures, but often in practice a small number of political leaders and consultants - has the God-like powers to guarantee not only which political party wins a majority of seats, but also to make or break individual political careers.

Every 10 years, redistricting arrives like a recurring plague of locusts. After the release of new census numbers at the start of a decade, all legislative districts across the nation must be redrawn to ensure that they are closely equal in population.

Redrawing district lines may sound like an innocent enterprise, but it just well may be the ugliest, most partisan part of our politics.

The tools are powerful computers and software that are increasingly sophisticated and precise. The tactics are "packing" and "cracking": packing as many opponents into as few districts as possible and cracking an opponent's natural base into different districts.

Does redistricting make a difference? You bet it does. In Virginia, the Democrats in 2001 won their first gubernatorial race since 1989. But Republicans went from barely controlling the statehouse to a two-thirds majority. How? That's right - Republicans drew the district lines.

Virginia is not alone. In several states, one party has stuck it to the other - just ask a Republican mugged in Georgia or Maryland, or a Democrat roughed up in Michigan or Pennsylvania.

But the real story of the latest redistricting cycle has been that both parties typically have colluded to take on their real enemy: the voters. With half the states having completed redistricting, the past year will go down in political history for the crass way it has raised "incumbent protection" to a new level.

Take California. The California Democratic Party controlled redistricting, and its leaders decided to cement their advantage rather than expand it. Incumbents took no chances.

Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez acknowledged to the Orange County Register that she and most of her Democratic US House colleagues each forked over $20,000 to Michael Berman, the consultant charged by the Democratic Party to craft the redistricting plan.

The money was classic "protection money." Sanchez stated "$20,000 is nothing to keep your seat. I spend $2 million [campaigning] every election. If my colleagues are smart, they'll pay their $20,000, and Michael will draw the district they can win in."

California's Republican Party, which has vociferously opposed past Democratic redistricting plans, was largely mute this time. That's because their incumbents also were bought off with the promise of safe seats. The one incumbent facing a tough reelection battle promptly announced his retirement; the rest are likely free from serious competition for the next 10 years.

The story has been the same in state after state. The Wall Street Journal in a November editorial titled "The Gerrymander Scandal" estimated that as few as 30 of the 435 US House seats will be competitive in 2002. Already, fewer than 1 in 10 House seats were won by competitive margins of less than 10 percent in 1998 and 2000.

The ones hurt by these back-room deals are the voters. For most, their only real choice in the next decade will be to ratify the candidate of the party that was handed that district in redistricting. One-party fiefdoms will be the rule no matter what changes are made in campaign financing and term limits until we reform the redistricting process or turn to voter-friendly electoral systems like proportional representation.

Congress in fact has full authority to set national standards that could at least curb the most egregious cases of gerrymandering. Unfortunately, not a single bill has been proposed in years to lessen the impact of politics in redistricting.

There once was a time when voters went to the polls on the first Tuesday in November and picked their representatives. But that's changed. Now the representatives pick the voters first. Following on the heels of the 2000 election debacle, this only further undermines confidence in our political system.

Rob Richie and Steven Hill are, respectively, the executive director and the western regional director of the Center for Voting and Democracy and co- authors of "Whose Vote Counts?" (Beacon Press, 2001).

radii -- Re-districting is becoming more & more like college football recruiting here, it's an annual event. We're currently awaiting the outcome of at least one lawsuit over the current plan & have a reasonably good chance of re-districting before the next census one way or another.

That's on the heels of lawsuits over the two previous re-drawings of the map.

The current map (more at the state level than Congressional) is one that looks like it was drawn by Ray Charles during an epileptic seizure. A drunken blind kindergartener could have done better.

Texas Democratic Senator #1: Did you think of this plan?

Texas Democratic Seantor #2: No. But I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

"the GOP gained control of the Texas House for the first time since Reconstruction.

So, what have the GOP been doing in Texas the last 130 plus years, biding their time? Waiting for just the right CENTURY to make the long anticipated power grabbing move?"

Senator, you answered your own question with your first line. They could exactly make a power-grabbing move when they weren't in control, now could they? :)

EDIT: I also love this. Not what the democrats are doing. But what the democrats have done has really shown that bi-partisonship is just an illusion.

sabotai
Truer words were never spoken.

FTR, I'm not aiming that at either side, it's about equally true in both directions AFAIC

Im watching it on Buchanan and Press..... Funny stuff .

FTR, I wasn't aiming it at one side over the other either. (Not saying you implied that I did or did not Jon, just clarifying). It's no secret that I hate both republicans and democrats.

Re-districting IMO should never be in the hands of the politicians. There is no surer way to ensure the disenfranchisement of voter communities and the outright flaunting of the laws then to let those in power decide how to arrange things to keep themselves in power.

The state of Maryland's congressional districts for example, are a complete joke, with odd squiggles all over the state and districts that are only contiguous by the width of a city street. I live closer to DC then to Baltimore, but of course my house rep is a Baltimore resident. I don't think I've ever seen more blatantly gerrymandered districts then those in Maryland (not that I've ever looked too hard; so I'm sure there are/have been some just as bad if not worse).

Re-districting shouldn't be a plan to protect representative jobs. It should be simple. Take the states population divide by the number of house seats. You now have the population of each chunk. Divide the state into the appropriate number contiguous chunks as close to squares as possible. There are your districts. This job should be done by an independant arbitrator in all instances, and not by the people who benefit (or lose) the most in the redrawing of the districts.

No fuss, no muss, no arguing, no ajustments so that x number of registered party members are in the district, no adjustments based on racial or ethnic lines, simply create the contiguous blocks and let it go; adjust each 10 years as necessary.