|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Texas Democrats' Future After Redistricting Armstrong Williams What Tom DeLay's Win Really Means in the Lone Star State Poor Tom DeLay. The Washington media already had his political obituary written and typeset for the front pages of Wednesday morning's papers: "The Hammer Falls for Last Time ... Reign of Texas Kingmaker Ends in Shame ..." I can only imagine the semi-controlled glee reflected in the liberal media's headlines. But it didn't happen. And an equally big news story was immediately relegated to the back pages.
In classic "Dewey Defeats Truman" political fashion, Tom DeLay defied the odds and pulled off an overwhelming victory, garnering 62 percent in his primary win on Tuesday night. What made the victory all the more sweet was that Texas holds open primaries, meaning that every political enemy the Republican Hammer ever made now had not just one November shot, but two chances to tell the Texan where he could hang his boots.
Story Continues Below
In speaking with Christine DeLay following her husband's victory, she reminded me what the pundits and analysts were saying: In order for her husband to win, he needed a low voter turnout. But this was the second-largest turnout in the district's primary history. "The people that know Tom DeLay know Tom DeLay," she told me. "And after all the writing and all the predictions, the people have spoken. Spoken loud and clear, without any misunderstandings of how they feel."
But the DeLay win is important for what it says about not only voters in his district, but also all Texans. Face facts: Texas is a Republican red state, and here to stay. The U.S. Supreme Court should keep that in mind when considering the landmark decision it is now deliberating regarding Texas redistricting and the so-called controversy surrounding how the map was drawn.
Irrespective of how you feel about Tom DeLay and the legal troubles he faces, the political lines drawn by the Texas Legislature in 2003 now reflect the votes and views of a majority of Texans.
As commonsensical as that last statement sounds, it wasn't always the case. For the better part of two decades during the '80s and '90s Texas Democrats witnessed a political erosion of their party, yet somehow managed to maintain an iron grip on the state's congressional seats. How is it possible for a party to garner two-thirds (66 percent) of all votes cast by Texans in 1982, yet hold over four-fifths (81 percent) of all the state's congressional seats? Those kinds of win percentages would make Daley Chicago-style politics look tame and mild.
Even as late as 2002, Texas voters were going to the polls and pulling the lever for Republicans at the statewide rate of nearly 55 percent. Yet when the votes were all counted, the number of Texas Republicans headed to Washington was only 15 of 32 total seats less than 47 percent.
It wasn't until the Texas Legislature finally exercised its constitutional prerogative to draw the state's congressional lines that the Democrats' two-step finally come to an end. The 2003 plan allowed a majority of voters (nearly 60 percent) to elect a majority of the Lone Star State's congressional delegation (21 of 32 seats), whereas the previous map diverged dramatically from voter preference. Texas had finally turned red.
Opponents of the so-called "DeLay-drawn map" argue that Texas Republicans racially gerrymandered key minority-dominated congressional districts, thereby suppressing the views of the minority as well as the election of minority representatives.
Yet not only did the new plan not result in the elimination of protected majority-minority districts, it also carved out a new one, even though there was no legal requirement to do so under the Voting Rights Act. In the 2004 congressional elections (the first year after the new Texas map), minority representation actually increased to nine seats (six Hispanics and three African-Americans, up from six Hispanics and two African-Americans).
"Still not fair," cry the Democrats. Because the new 2003 map eliminated the 1991 Democrat-gerrymandered lines artificially protecting several rural white Democrats, opponents allege the new map violated the Voting Rights Act. But the Act was designed and intended to protect minority voting rights, not the guaranteed election of one particular party. To assume that one party holds a monopoly on representing the views of a particular minority is both arrogant and insulting to the constituents it purports to represent.
That's not justice, and it's certainly not found in the Constitution. Given its previous positions and rulings, expect the highest court in the land to validate the voters' preferences.
www.armstrongwilliams.com
Editor's note:
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |