+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal

    Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101927_pf.html

    Voting Rights Finding On Map Pushed by DeLay Was Overruled

    By Dan Eggen
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, December 2, 2005; A01


    Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan.

    The memo, unanimously endorsed by six lawyers and two analysts in the department's voting section, said the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence in elections.

    "The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a discriminatory effect," the memo concluded.

    The memo also found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory compared with other options.

    But the Texas legislature proceeded with the new map anyway because it would maximize the number of Republican federal lawmakers in the state, the memo said. The redistricting was approved in 2003, and Texas Republicans gained five seats in the U.S. House in the 2004 elections, solidifying GOP control of Congress.

    J. Gerald "Gerry" Hebert, one of the lawyers representing Texas Democrats who are challenging the redistricting in court, said of the Justice Department's action: "We always felt that the process . . . wouldn't be corrupt, but it was. . . . The staff didn't see this as a close call or a mixed bag or anything like that. This should have been a very clear-cut case."

    But Justice Department spokesman Eric W. Holland said the decision to approve the Texas plan was vindicated by a three-judge panel that rejected the Democratic challenge. The case is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    "The court ruled that, in fact, the new congressional plan created a sufficient number of safe minority districts given the demographics of the state and the requirements of the law," Holland said. He added that Texas now has three African Americans serving in Congress, up from two before the redistricting.

    Texas Republicans also have maintained that the plan did not dilute minority votes and that the number of congressional districts with a majority of racial minorities remained unchanged at 11. The total number of congressional districts, however, grew from 30 to 32.

    The 73-page memo, dated Dec. 12, 2003, has been kept under tight wraps for two years. Lawyers who worked on the case were subjected to an unusual gag rule. The memo was provided to The Post by a person connected to the case who is critical of the adopted redistricting map. Such recommendation memos, while not binding, historically carry great weight within the Justice Department.

    Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Texas and other states with a history of discriminatory elections are required to submit changes in their voting systems or election maps for approval by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

    The Texas case provides another example of conflict between political appointees and many of the division's career employees. In a separate case, The Post reported last month that a team was overruled when it recommended rejecting a controversial Georgia voter-identification program that was later struck down as unconstitutional by a court.

    Mark Posner, a longtime Justice Department lawyer who now teaches law at American University, said it was "highly unusual" for political appointees to overrule a unanimous finding such as the one in the Texas case.

    "In this kind of situation, where everybody agrees at least on the staff level . . . that is a very, very strong case," Posner said. "The fact that everybody agreed that there were reductions in minority voting strength, and that they were significant, raises a lot of questions as to why it was" approved, he said.

    The Texas memo also provides new insight into the highly politicized environment surrounding that state's redistricting fight, which prompted Democratic state lawmakers to flee the state in hopes of derailing the plan. DeLay and his allies participated intensively as they pushed to redraw Texas's congressional boundaries and strengthen GOP control of the U.S. House.

    DeLay, the former House majority leader, is fighting state felony counts of money laundering and conspiracy -- crimes he is charged with committing by unlawfully injecting corporate money into state elections. His campaign efforts were made in preparation for the new congressional map that was the focus of the Justice Department memo.

    One of two DeLay aides also under indictment in the case, James W. Ellis, is cited in the Justice Department memo as pushing for the plan despite the risk that it would not receive "pre-clearance," or approval, from the department. Ellis and other DeLay aides successfully forced the adoption of their plan over two other versions passed by Texas legislators that would not have raised as many concerns about voting rights discrimination, the memo said.

    "We need our map, which has been researched and vetted for months," Ellis wrote in an October 2003 document, according to the Justice Department memo. "The pre-clearance and political risks are the delegation's and we are willing to assume those risks, but only with our map."

    Hebert said the Justice Department's approval of the redistricting plan, signed by Sheldon T. Bradshaw, principal deputy assistant attorney general, was valuable to Texas officials when they defended it in court. He called the internal Justice Department memo, which did not come out during the court case, "yet another indictment of Tom DeLay, because this memo shows conclusively that the map he produced violated the law."

    DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden called Hebert's characterization "nonsensical political babble" and echoed the Justice Department in pointing to court rulings that have found no discriminatory impact on minority voters.

    "Fair and reasonable arguments can be made in favor of the map's merits that also refute any notion that the plan is unfair or doesn't meet legal standards," Madden said. "Ultimately the court will decide whether the criticisms have any weight or validity."

    Testimony in the civil lawsuit demonstrated that DeLay and Ellis insisted on last-minute changes during the Texas legislature's final deliberations. Ellis said DeLay traveled to Texas to attend many of the meetings that produced the final map, and Ellis himself worked through the state's lieutenant governor and a state senator to shape the outcome.

    In their analysis, the Justice Department lawyers emphasized that the last-minute changes -- made in a legislative conference committee, out of public view -- fundamentally altered legally acceptable redistricting proposals approved separately by the Texas House and Senate.

    "It was not necessary" for these plans to be altered, except to advance partisan political goals, the department lawyers concluded.

    Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, said he did not have any immediate comment.

    The Justice Department memo recommending rejection of the Texas plan was written by two analysts and five lawyers. In addition, the head of the voting section at the time, Joseph Rich, wrote a concurring opinion. Rich has since left the department and declined to comment on the memo yesterday.

    The complexity of the arguments surrounding the Voting Rights Act is evident in the Justice Department memo, which focused particular attention on seats held in 2003 by a white Democrat, Martin Frost, and a Hispanic Republican, Henry Bonilla.

    Voting data showed that Frost commanded great support from minority constituents, while Bonilla had relatively little support from Hispanics. The question to be considered by Justice Department lawyers was whether the new map was "retrogressive," because it diluted the power of minority voters to elect their candidate of choice. Under the adopted Texas plan, Frost's congressional district was dismantled, while the proportion of Hispanics in Bonilla's district dropped significantly. Those losses to black and Hispanic voters were not offset by other gains, the memo said.

    "This result quite plainly indicates a reduction in minority voting strength," Rich wrote in his concurring opinion. "The state's argument that it has increased minority voting strength . . . simply does not stand up under careful analysis."


    Staff writer R. Jeffrey Smith and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal

    More to come, stay tuned...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal

    LOL, this rightwinger really is out of touch with reality.
    *****************************************

    By Ann Coulter
    Thu Dec 8,11:01 AM ET

    Democrat prosecutor Ronnie Earle's conspiracy charge against Tom DeLay was thrown out this week, which came as a surprise to people who think it's normal for a prosecutor to have to empanel six grand juries in order to get an indictment on simple fund-raising violations. Mr. Earle will presumably assemble a seventh grand jury as soon as he locates someone in the county who hasn't served on a previous one.


    It probably goes without saying that it is extraordinary for criminal charges to be thrown out by a judge before any jury ever hears the evidence. Juries decide guilt or innocence in this country. For the judge to dismiss an indictment before trial, it means he concluded that -- even if the jury finds everything Ronnie Earle alleges to be true -- no crime was committed.

    Obviously, this was a huge victory for DeLay and, as The Washington Post put it, "a slap at Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle." (More bad news for Ronnie Earle: Today President Bush said the embattled Texas D.A. was doing "a heck of a job.")

    Or, in the words of CNN's Bill Schneider on what this means for Tom DeLay: "Not good." In the expert analysis of Schneider, it was "not good" for DeLay to have charges thrown out because it would have been even better if all the charges had been thrown out. It also would have been better if the judge had dismissed the conspiracy charges and given DeLay an ice cream cone.

    But that doesn't mean having criminal charges against you dismissed is, I quote, "not good." And they think Fox News has twice CNN's ratings just because it's fair and balanced. The accountants at Fox could give a more penetrating legal analysis.

    In the past few years, all TV news has become less biased due to the salubrious influence of Fox News. But Bill Schneider isn't backing off one inch! Watching Schneider is like entering a time machine and seeing how news was reported in the '80s. CNN ought to start broadcasting Schneider's appearances only in black and white.

    According to Schneider, the judge's failure to dismiss the money laundering charges proves "obviously, on at least one charge the judge disagreed" with DeLay's claim that the prosecutor was politically motivated. Schneider's entire understanding of criminal law was apparently shaped during the Ally McBeal years.

    Schneider would have said more, but he had to run off to file a story about how 4.3 percent growth, 215,000 new jobs, record productivity gains and continued growth in real estate prices were "not good" news for the economy.

    In fact, all we know as a result of the judge's ruling on Monday is that the remaining charge against DeLay, if proved, would at least constitute a crime.

    To repeat what you might already have heard in third grade: In America, the validity of criminal charges is determined by the trier of fact after a trial. A judge is not authorized to dismiss a criminal indictment handed up by a grand jury just because the prosecutor is a political hack.

    This is true even if the prosecutor had to spend three years and empanel six grand juries to get an indictment.

    It is true even if the same prosecutor also indicted Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison days after she was elected to the U.S. Senate, but after spending a year holding press conferences in which he called Hutchinson a criminal, still had no evidence and folded his hand.

    It is true even if the prosecutor is participating in a documentary about a brave liberal prosecutor (Ronnie Earle) exposing a black-hearted Republican (Tom DeLay) -- which wouldn't make much of a movie if no charges were ever brought.

    Thus, for example, Earle's baseless charges against Hutchison -- like the remaining charges against DeLay -- were not dismissed before trial. What happened was, the trial date came and Earle had no evidence. The judge ordered the jury to acquit.

    Earle never admitted he had no evidence against Hutchison. Instead, he made a preposterous request of the judge. He asked the judge to issue a pre-emptive ruling declaring all documents that Earle planned to admit throughout the trial admissible -- without allowing the judge to know what those documents were or allowing the defense an opportunity to object. Obviously, the judge said he would have to see the documents first and decide admissibility on a case-by-case basis.

    So now and forevermore, Earle claims his case against Hutchison was watertight, but because the judge ruled against him, he was prevented from presenting his "evidence" to the jury. Remember that when liberals call Bill O'Reilly a "liar" because he won a Polk award, but one time he got confused and called it a Peabody award.

    .

Similar Threads

  1. 100,000 Illegal Immigrant Gang Members in Texas
    By conserv4ever in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-08-2014, 08:57 AM
  2. Texas: Illegal Immigration Hypocrisy
    By naturefreak2101 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-03-2011, 07:07 AM
  3. MySpace to lay off 30 percent of staff
    By MuminYazar in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-25-2009, 12:50 PM
  4. Texas Authorities Struggle Against Wave of Illegal
    By Thorgrimm in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-28-2008, 02:29 AM
  5. Illegal Immigrants Pay More Than They Cost Sez Texas
    By chocho in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-24-2007, 09:31 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, act, action, added, addition, admit, admitted, advance, aff, africa, african, agreed, agrees, allowing, america, ann, another, appeal, approval, approved, art, article, assistant, attention, attorney general, authorized, award, aware, bad, bet, better, blue, call, called, campaign, career, careful, carry, case, cer, challenge, civil, claim, claims, cleara, clearance, com, commanded, commit, committing, con, concerns, conferences, congressional, connected, cons, contributed, corporate, corrupt, country, county, cream, crimes, critical, dan, data, date, days, december, decision, defended, democratic, democrats, demons, department, didn, ding, division, documents, doesn, dow, dropped, due, effect, elec, elected, electio, employees, endorsed, entire, environment, eric, estate, expert, exposing, extraordinary, failure, fair, favor, federal, felony, felt, fight, file, final, finding, finds, five, focus, fox, fund, gag, general, georgia, gerald, give, good, gop, governor, gra, grand, great, greg, grow, growth, had, handed, happened, hasn, heard, helped, hey, high, highly, him, his, history, holding, hose, house, html, huge, hus, ice, illegally, ime, impact, inch, indicted, influence, inter, internal, isn, issue, jeffrey, judge, just, kevin, kind, last, laundering, lawmakers, lawsuit, lawyers, led, liberal, liberals, lol, long, lot, machine, main, make, many, maps, marti, martin, maximize, mea, meet, minorities, monday, money, money laundering, month, more, movie, need, normal, now, number, october, officials, only, opportunity, options, order, ordered, ouch, page, pas, passed, person, planned, plans, politically, pos, post, power, presiden, prices, process, program, proposal, proposals, prosecutor, proved, proves, questions, quote, raising, rated, ratings, reality, reasonable, reilly, remember, rep, republican, republicans, requirements, rich, risk, ron, ronnie, run, safe, sch, seats, section, senate, served, showed, shows, signed, simple, simply, smith, soo, spend, spokesman, staff, star, start, state, states, stay, story, strength, submit, subs, such, support, supreme, supreme court, systems, tan, team, ted, texas, they, throw, time, today, tom, total, touch, unconstitutional, uni, university, url, usual, vet, victory, view, viola, violated, votes, watching, water, week, won, worked, years, yesterday

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •