It's exactly what we are. Every Congressional district drawn by majority Democrats in the General Court is designed to prevent the election of a Republican.
Consider the Second District, "represented" by urban anti-gun Dem. Richard Neal of Springfield. It snakes across southern Mass. from Agawam, east of Springfield, eastward to Bellingham. The liberal, anti-gun concentration in the Springfield area easily overcomes any pro-gun conservative votes in rural towns.
Some people in Texas contested such districting, and won a partial victory, although not to pro-gun benefit:
By GINA HOLLAND
June 28, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay but threw out part, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.
The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents out of office.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan.
Republicans picked up six Texas congressional seats two years ago, and the court's ruling does not seriously threaten those gains. Lawmakers, however, will have to adjust boundary lines to address the court's concerns.
At issue was the shifting of 100,000 Hispanics out of a district represented by a Republican incumbent and into a new, oddly shaped district. Foes of the plan had argued that that was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting rights.
On a different issue, the court ruled that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like - not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital.
The Constitution says states must adjust their congressional district lines every 10 years to account for population shifts. In Texas the boundaries were redrawn twice after the 2000 census, first by a court, then by state lawmakers in a second round promoted by DeLay after Republicans took control.
That was acceptable, justices said.
So, why not here?
JT
Consider the Second District, "represented" by urban anti-gun Dem. Richard Neal of Springfield. It snakes across southern Mass. from Agawam, east of Springfield, eastward to Bellingham. The liberal, anti-gun concentration in the Springfield area easily overcomes any pro-gun conservative votes in rural towns.
Some people in Texas contested such districting, and won a partial victory, although not to pro-gun benefit:
By GINA HOLLAND
June 28, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay but threw out part, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.
The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents out of office.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan.
Republicans picked up six Texas congressional seats two years ago, and the court's ruling does not seriously threaten those gains. Lawmakers, however, will have to adjust boundary lines to address the court's concerns.
At issue was the shifting of 100,000 Hispanics out of a district represented by a Republican incumbent and into a new, oddly shaped district. Foes of the plan had argued that that was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting rights.
On a different issue, the court ruled that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like - not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital.
The Constitution says states must adjust their congressional district lines every 10 years to account for population shifts. In Texas the boundaries were redrawn twice after the 2000 census, first by a court, then by state lawmakers in a second round promoted by DeLay after Republicans took control.
That was acceptable, justices said.
So, why not here?
JT
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Hmmm Tanglewood hadn't considered them.
