"Though party officials typically dance around the unseemly issue of gerrymandering..."

"... this report is surprisingly candid and unabashed."

"So why is compromise so hard in the House?"

"Some commentators, especially liberals, attribute it to what they say is the irrationality of Republican members of Congress."

But the answer could be this instead: individual members of Congress are responding fairly rationally to their incentives. Most members of the House now come from hyperpartisan districts where they face essentially no threat of losing their seat to the other party. Instead, primary challenges, especially for Republicans, may be the more serious risk.

"How Maps Helped Republicans Keep an Edge in the House."

Headline at the NYT, where the first 2 paragraphs talk about Wisconsin. Is Wisconsin a clear majority-Democrat state rigged at the district level to elect Republicans?

It's hard to analyze exactly how bad or unfair this is. Either party, when it controls redistricting, takes advantage, and Democrats have the special problem that is referred to in the article as "“unintentional gerrymandering": "the natural geographic patterns that lead many Democrats to choose to live in dense, urban areas with very high concentrations of Democrats, effectively packing themselves into fewer districts." (Strangely worded, no?)

It's not hard to see that Democrats' majority in Wisconsin is caused by a concentration of Democrats in Milwaukee and Madison, and the representatives from these districts can lean way left without risking defeat in the next election. Is it necessarily evidence of a problem that elsewhere in the state, the elections are closer and Republicans can win?

In states where Republicans controlled the [redistricting] process, [a study] found, their candidates won roughly 53 percent of the vote — and 72 percent of the seats. And in the states where Democrats controlled the process, their candidates won about 56 percent of the vote and 71 percent of the seats.

That doesn't mean the Republicans are more advantage-taking than Democrats, though, because of the way the population is dispersed.

An analysis by The New York Times of states where courts, commissions or divided governments drew the maps found a much smaller disparity between the share of the popular vote and the number of seats won in Congress. In those states, the analysis found, Democrats won slightly more than half the vote and 56 percent of the seats, while Republicans won 46 percent of the vote and 44 percent of the seats.

Isn't this because the Democrats, when they control, choose not to cut up those urban districts? And which states ended up in that comparison group and why? I'd like to know more detail. Why is there no more detail? Articles like this clearly serve the political purposes of the Democratic party, stoking the belief that the Democrats really deserve much more power than is reflected in actual legislatures. 

"Ponchos and sombreros: Partygoers don ‘insensitive’ attire despite student efforts."

Imagine! Student efforts failing to sear prick the conscience of the Mifflin Street Block Party people.

The student group that wants respectful seriousness and no horsing around on the subject of Cinco de Mayo calls itself Badgers Against Racism... or "BAR."

IN THE COMMENTS: pduggie said:

"sear the conscience" is the opposite of what you mean.

To have a seared conscience is to have one that is locked out from all claims of injustice.

I think you mean wound or prick.

He refers me to the New Testament, 1 Timothy:

¹The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. ²Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. ³They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. ⁴For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, ⁵because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

I stand corrected. Prick is a much better word.

And by the way — I'm sure I'm not the first person to notice — there's a nice biblical argument for same sex marriage. St. Paul contemned the bad religionists who "forbid people to marry," and — right at that point — said "For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." Did God not create gay people?

Here we are "in later times." Is your conscience seared or pricked?

AND: Though I've read the New Testament many times (though mostly the Gospels), my experience with searing the conscience is overwhelmingly from something written by Felix Frankfurter, in a passage I've used repeated in my constitutional law classes. The case is Baker v. Carr — a great Warren Court landmark — and Justice Frankfurter articulates what is, to me, the most memorable statement of judicial restraint in the Supreme Court reporters:

We were soothingly told at the bar of this Court that we need not worry about the kind of remedy a court could effectively fashion once the abstract constitutional right to have courts pass on a statewide system of electoral districting is recognized as a matter of judicial rhetoric, because legislatures would heed the Court's admonition. This is not only a euphoric hope. It implies a sorry confession of judicial impotence in place of a frank acknowledgment that there is not under our Constitution a judicial remedy for every political mischief, for every undesirable exercise of legislative power. The Framers, carefully and with deliberate forethought, refused so to enthrone the judiciary. In this situation, as in others of like nature, appeal for relief does not belong here. Appeal must be to an informed, civically militant electorate. In a democratic society like ours, relief must come through an aroused popular conscience that sears the conscience of the people's representatives. In any event, there is nothing judicially more unseemly nor more self-defeating than for this Court to make in terrorem pronouncements, to indulge in merely empty rhetoric, sounding a word of promise to the ear sure to be disappointing to the hope.

I'm quite shocked to discover Frankfurter misused the phrase! But then — did you know? — English was a second language for Felix Frankfurter, who was born in Vienna.

The Wisconsin senate, now evenly split, is fighting over access to lawyers' communications about redistricting.

The Republicans lost their majority when Sen. Pam Galloway (R-Wausau), facing a recall election, abruptly quit. Pending the election, which either party's candidate could win, the 2 parties must share power, and the dispute over redistricting enters a new phase:

Republicans hired Michael Best & Friedrich last year to help them draw the maps, with the firm signing separate contracts with the Assembly and Senate. One of those contracts - written when the GOP controlled both houses - says "our client is the Wisconsin State Senate by its majority leader, Scott L. Fitzgerald."

Fitzgerald is no longer the leader of the majority, only the leader of the Republicans. The Democrats also have a leader.

Democrats for the last 15 months have contended they should have equal access to Michael Best because the contract was with the entire Senate. Republicans balked, barring them from consulting with the attorneys.

Now that Democrats share power with the Republicans, they want a chance to review privileged files and help direct what actions the law firm takes next....

But Fitzgerald said that he had spoken with the firm and that the arrangement would continue as it did when Republicans had outright control of the Senate.

"I'm still dealing directly with them," Fitzgerald said. "They said the contract is still between Senator Fitzgerald and the firm. . . . That relationship is still intact."

Michael Best attorney Eric McLeod confirmed the firm would continue to take direction from Fitzgerald.

"Until there's a change in the contract via some action taken by the Senate, we're simply operating under the contract as it was previously written," McLeod said.

Meanwhile, there is litigation in federal court about the redistricting, and the 3-judge panel just held that 2 of the Milwaukee districts had diluted the voting power of Latinos and needed to be redrawn. Of course, the split senate can't get anywhere in this assigned task.

Rick Esenberg, president of the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, said it is hard to know if Michael Best can continue to represent the majority "since there is no majority."

He said it is unclear if the firm can represent both the Republicans and Democrats, or if that would create a conflict of interest that would require the firm to step aside. He also noted the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate could retain separate counsel. Or, the Republicans could have Michael Best continue its work solely through its contract with the Assembly, he said. Whatever the case, there may not be much work left that needs to be done because the case is nearing its end, he said.

Tax money goes to pay these lawyers, which might make it seem as though the Democrats are entitled to access to them as well. But consider that the Democrats, when they had the majority before January 2011, hired their own lawyers for redistricting work, paid them with taxpayer money, required the Republicans to get their own legal representation, and refused to allocate money for those lawyers. It's been a long fight between 2 parties, and they have had their own lawyers.

"The 2012 congressional redistricting cycle following the 2010 Census... seems likely to make much less difference than many of us expected."

Writes Michael Barone:

I predicted that this cycle, like the 2002 cycle, would produce significant gains for Republicans. Their success in electing governors and legislators in 2010 gave them control in big states like Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina. And voters in Democratic California approved a ballot measure turning redistricting over to a nonpartisan commission.

But it turns out Republicans will probably only gain 1 new seat in Congress as a result of all this.

In the [some] big states... Republicans concentrated on bolstering incumbents rather than creating new districts. Big Hispanic population increases in Texas and Florida forced Republicans to create new Democratic districts.

It is said that partisan redistricting can swing dozens of seats the way of one party through the creation of grotesquely shaped districts. But most grotesque districts in the current cycle owe their shape to the Voting Rights Act. Otherwise partisan districting has produced pretty clean lines. 

And when voters change their minds, redistricters can turn out to be too clever by half. Many districts designed to elect Republicans elected Democrats in 2006 and 2008. Many districts designed to elect Democrats elected Republicans in 2010. 

The less aggressive redistricting plans adopted this cycle show that even strong partisans have absorbed the lesson that if you create a bunch of 53 percent districts you can lose them when your side’s support goes down by 4 or 5 percent.

Justice O'Connor said it best in the original political gerrymandering case, Davis v. Bandemer:

[T]here is good reason to think that political gerrymandering is a self-limiting enterprise. See B. Cain, The Reapportionment Puzzle 151-159 (1984). In order to gerrymander, the legislative majority must weaken some of its safe seats, thus exposing its own incumbents to greater risks of defeat — risks they may refuse to accept past a certain point. Id. at 154-155. Similarly, an overambitious gerrymander can lead to disaster for the legislative majority: because it has created more seats in which it hopes to win relatively narrow victories, the same swing in overall voting strength will tend to cost the legislative majority more and more seats as the gerrymander becomes more ambitious. Id. at 152. More generally, each major party presumably has ample weapons at its disposal to conduct the partisan struggle that often leads to a partisan apportionment, but also often leads to a bipartisan one. There is no proof before us that political gerrymandering is an evil that cannot be checked or cured by the people or by the parties themselves. Absent such proof, I see no basis for concluding that there is a need, let alone a constitutional basis, for judicial intervention.

That was judicial restraint — circa 1986 — and it was apt.

Wisconsin redistricting: If the Voces de la Frontera get what they want, the Hispanics for Leadership will sue.

"Zeus Rodriguez said the Leadership group believes the GOP’s maps will help Latinos, not hurt them...."

One of the GOP’s districts at issue is just under 50 percent Hispanic, while another is just over 40 percent. Rodriguez says that’s enough to influence voters to choose Hispanic lawmakers in both districts.

Wisconsin Republican legislators — in federal court — argue that state constitutional law forbids redrawing the election districts they drew last year.

The case, brought by Democrats and Voces de la Frontera (an immigrant rights group), is before a 3-judge panel (at the trial level), and yesterday, with the trial about to begin, the panel had "asked both sides to spend the day determining whether lawmakers would consider drawing new maps that would address the plaintiff's concerns."

Presiding Judge J.P. Stadtmueller explained the request by citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court case that said redistricting is best left up to the lawmakers, not judges.

It was at that point that the Republicans grounded their position on state law. I doubt if they want to move the lines, but you can see why it's an appealing argument to say the state constitution doesn't permit it.

Attorney Daniel Kelly said a 1954 ruling by the state Supreme Court established that new voter maps can be drawn only once every 10 years, to avert a never-ending stream of calls for fresh changes.

An attorney for the plaintiffs disagreed. State law only requires that new voter maps be completed in the first legislative session, attorney Douglas Poland said, and this first legislative session hasn't ended.

Now, you've got a disputed question of state law, which the federal panel could attempt to resolve, except it's not part of resolving the legal questions presented in the case, it has to do with the panel's effort to push the parties into settlement, which, it seems, the panel suggested because of the weakness of the federal claim.

What is that federal claim? It seems to be about legislative secrecy: the public didn't get enough information about what was going on in the legislature.

Bills to redraw voting boundaries for state legislative districts, congressional districts and municipalities -- allegedly in ways skewed to benefit Republicans -- were introduced last July 11. The bills promptly passed the GOP-controlled Legislature and were signed into law by Gov. Scott Walker.

Republicans in the Legislature produced completed maps before inviting any public comment. And now it's emerged that GOP lawmakers signed secrecy agreements regarding the process, stirring fresh controversy and potential legal challenges.

"The state redistricting map is rotten and the process by which it passed is rotten," said Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, a Latino advocacy group whose federal lawsuit challenging the maps brought the secrecy pacts to light. The Legislature, she said at a Feb. 8 press conference, "willfully shut out any public opinion."

I haven't been following the lawsuit, but, just looking at the report this morning, I do not understand what the federal claim is supposed to be. Why is this case going to trial? It sounds like a purely political dispute, and perhaps the 3-judge panel got cold feet yesterday, when the trial was supposed to begin.

The Supreme Court will hear the Texas redistricting case — quickly, in time for the 2012 primary.

Adam Liptak reports:

The court stayed orders from a special three-judge court in San Antonio, which issued electoral maps late last month that seemed to help Democrats and Hispanic voters.

“This thrusts the Supreme Court right into the partisan thicket,” said Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine. “It is no exaggeration to say that with three or four additional Democratic seats at issue under the original court-drawn plan, the decision could help decide control of the House.”

In typical fashion, the NYT forefronts the Supreme Court's intrusion into politics when it runs counter to Democratic Party interests. But the lower court intruded itself into the matter, redrawing districts originally made by the Texas legislature (which is controlled by Republicans). The Supreme Court is reviewing the work of a court that shifted power toward Democrats. Officially — legally — what they're arguing about is whether the Texas legislature shortchanged Hispanic voters under the standards of the Voting Rights Act.

ADDED: From the Austin American-Statesman:

"We are hopeful that the Attorney General and his team will be able to demonstrate to the Court the necessity of throwing out the panel's maps," [said Steve Munisteri, the chairman of the Republican Party of Texas]. "Further, we hope the Court will either restore the original district lines of the Legislature, or at the very least, make revisions to the district court panel's maps which are more in tune with the legislative intent."

Democrats may lose the seat vacated by Anthony Weiner.

The Republican has a 6-point lead in a new poll.

Whoever wins won't be able to run for reelection, because the district — in Brooklyn and Queens — has been redistricted out of existence, but the special election has symbolic importance.

CORRECTION: The redistricting hasn't happened yet. There's merely talk of eliminating this district. The state of New York is losing 2 districts after the 2010 census.

"Under the legislation, Democrats have little chance of attaining and retaining a majority in either the Senate or the Assembly, or in the congressional delegation..."

"... giving them little ability to overcome minority status at any point over the next decade."

That is a quote from the complaint in the lawsuit challenging the redistricting done this past week in Wisconsin. Read that again. Does it even pass the laugh test?

Let me trot this out again:



ADDED: Back in 1986, Justice O'Connor cogently observed that "there is good reason to think that political gerrymandering is a self-limiting enterprise":

In order to gerrymander, the legislative majority must weaken some of its safe seats, thus exposing its own incumbents to greater risks of defeat -- risks they may refuse to accept past a certain point. Similarly, an overambitious gerrymander can lead to disaster for the legislative majority: because it has created more seats in which it hopes to win relatively narrow victories, the same swing in overall voting strength will tend to cost the legislative majority more and more seats as the gerrymander becomes more ambitious. More generally, each major party presumably has ample weapons at its disposal to conduct the partisan struggle that often leads to a partisan apportionment, but also often leads to a bipartisan one. There is no proof before us that political gerrymandering is an evil that cannot be checked or cured by the people or by the parties themselves. Absent such proof, I see no basis for concluding that there is a need, let alone a constitutional basis, for judicial intervention.

With recall elections looming, the Wisconsin Senate Republicans get their congressional redistricting done.

There are cries of outrage, of course, but, without question, Democrats in the same position would do the same thing.

The proposed maps, which would take effect for the fall 2012 elections, would make three state Senate seats in southeastern Wisconsin dramatically more Republican and help the re-election bid of GOP freshman U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy of Ashland....

Democrats decried the maps as partisan and called it insulting to hold the vote on the same day Sen. Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) faced a recall election and just weeks before eight other senators will do the same.

"This is a huge power grab by a party that's worried about losing the majority in a couple of weeks," said Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton).

And "a huge power grab" is what your party wants. Here's Erpenbach's ex-brother-in-law Russ Feingold exhorting the protesters in Madison last month:



"This game's not over until we win."

"Republicans unveiled a plan Friday to redraw the state's 132 legislative seats just before a wave of recall elections this summer...."

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:

A quick vote would allow GOP lawmakers to approve the maps and lock down advantages for themselves at the ballot box for the next 10 years by drawing district lines in their favor. Republicans' schedule would allow them to sign off on maps to their liking even if they lose control of the Senate in the coming weeks....

Scott Fitzgerald spokesman Andrew Welhouse said Republicans would seek to pass separate legislation allowing the legislative and congressional maps to be redrawn before local municipalities finish drawing ward lines. Currently, state law requires the ward lines to be drawn first, which would mean that lawmakers would have to wait until long after the recall elections to pass a redistricting plan.

And wouldn't some of those municipalities drag out the process in order to give the Democrats more time to try to affect the line-drawing? The Democrats have shown their willingness to use whatever they can to have their way, so I can't see the argument against the Republicans changing that law about the sequencing to get what they want.

Democrats said two Democrats challenging Republican senators in recall elections - Rep. Fred Clark of Baraboo and former Brown County Executive Nancy Nusbaum - were drawn out of the districts they are seeking. That would mean if they won this summer's recall elections, they could serve briefly but would then have to move or run in a different district in November 2012.

Sounds like hardball politics, though the Republicans aren't admitting that. Assuming it is, I'm not bothered, because I think the Democrats would do the same if they were in that position. They use the techniques that are available to them (such as, here, litigating). Efforts to cry "shame" over this ring hollow to me.