Texas Democrats Set a Mark for Whole Party
 

LINK

----------------------------------------
By Robert Jensen
Republicans dominate Texas politics, but the national Democrats could learn a simple lesson from the state: Before you can become the party in power, you have to be a real opposition party.

When 51 Democratic members of the Texas House of Representatives left for Oklahoma earlier this month to derail a Republican redistricting plan, they did something that - for Democrats these days - seems radical: They stood up for themselves and for the democratic process.

The national Democrats have caved in to the Bush administration on every front - most notably an obscene tax cut that benefits the wealthiest and a war based on lies about terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The Democrats' status-quo politics has allowed the ideologically fanatical Republican leadership to push the status quo ever further to the right.

In Texas, it's been an ugly year for centrist, let alone progressive, politics. With majorities of 88-62 in the state House and 19-12 in the state Senate, Republicans have been gutting health and human-services programs, undermining environmental regulation and pushing bogus tort-reform measures - all of which will reward the rich and punish the poor.

Texas Democrats were getting nowhere in attempts to slow down this right-wing juggernaut. The Republican House speaker, Tom Craddick of Midland, played Bush's game: Talk bipartisanship but wield power harshly. Some of the reactionary right's agenda was advanced under the cover of a projected $10-billion shortfall for the next two fiscal years, but much of the legislative agenda was independent of the budget crisis.

Enter U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his plan to redistrict the Texas congressional delegation. If his gerrymandering had succeeded, the current balance of 17 Democrats to 15 Republicans could have shifted to 22 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

Three federal judges drew the current boundaries when the legislature failed to do so after the 2000 census. There's no principled or legal reason the districts need to be redrawn before 2010; at least DeLay was honest about that. "I'm the majority leader and we want more seats," he said.

That's what Texas Democrats faced when they boarded a bus for the Holiday Inn in Ardmore, Okla. Their absence denied the state House a quorum, and they didn't return until after the May 15 deadline for passage of House bills, guaranteeing that the redistricting plan was dead.

They've been called cowards for leaving, but their action took real political courage. Yes, they were trying to protect the last remnant of Democratic political power in a state with a Republican executive and legislature, and two Republican U.S. senators. But there also was a question of fair play.

Lon Burnam, one of the Democratic refugees, said the walkout was born partly of outrage at GOP tactics: "For three months the Republicans refused to deal with fundamental issues - the deficit, funding for public schools, a homeowners' insurance crisis ... And then they wanted to let Tom DeLay define the state's agenda during the last week that House bills could be considered. It was absolutely unnecessary and would have seriously undermined the Voting Rights Act in Texas."

Will the Democrats' gambit pay off politically? The next election will provide the answer, but as one letter-writer in Austin put it, "I was ecstatic to see that Texas Democrats still have guts."

And Erin Rogers, who handles organizing and lobbies the legislature for the Texas chapter of the Sierra Club, said: "Democrats across the state were cheering, not only because redistricting failed but because the party found its spine."

Although the current two-party system is killing real democracy, the Democrats should heed this: If you want to be something more than Karl Rove's doormat, keep more of an eye on Texas in the coming months than on the polls. Taking risks might prove to be politically effective. And even if it doesn't win votes in the short term, it will win back some self-respect.
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.
----------------------------------------

I'm pretty sure everyone knows this story, but has anyone seen where this is paying-off to the National party?

Do you have any idea what the odds are on these 51 being re-elected? To anything in Texas? They probably better just make another run for the border.

i think it's great.

they got a whole bunch of publicity and there were a huge bunch of people congratulating them on their return (that actually showed up w/ signs of support)

i can tell u that jim mcreynolds (my local rep) is gettin re-elected!

Again, I fear politicians are just that, politicians. It doesn't make any difference if they are Republican or democrat they are voting for what they think will get them reelected not what they think is good for the country.

i think by the time elections roll around most people will forgive and forget

So is this article saying that the democrats in Washington should run to canada?

It seems to me that the democrats idea of democracy has become "If the majority doesn't agree with you then run from the majority."

Nice to know you support politicians who walk out on you.

sure do, and i personally called jim mcreynolds and gave him congrats for this.

Isn't redistricting a natural part of the game (It happens like every 10 years)? Fucking baby ass Democrats.

No, it's only a "natural part of the game" when it favors Democrats. If it favors Republicans, it's an under-the-table sneaky sneaky back-stabbing maneuver. The double-standard is so completely ridiculous, that it amazes me that people actually bother trying to rationalize it.

The Democrats in TX set a mark for the whole party by running out on their constituents, like they have before, and like they will whenever it benefits them to do so. The "we care for everyone" party showed very clearly that what they care about is getting re-elected, and that is ALL. Not that Republicans are leagues above them, heh.

What, in your opinion, is the reasoning behind the framers writing a rule into the proceedings that mandates how many people have to be present before business can be conducted?

Keep in mind that there are no negative consequences written into the rule indicating that the option to not be present wasn't held to be irresponsible or wrong.

My guess would be to prevent a handful of legislators to run the government in the event that many others are involuntarily unavailable (war, famine, natural disaster). I somehow doubt (silly me) that it would be written in there to allow childish legislators to skip town if something isn't going their way.

I'm sure that the framers are rolling around in their graves at the suggestion that this was appropriate use of said loophole.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Ah, that's right. It certainly doesn't fit the context of those other annoying "loopholes" the minority has at its disposal to restrain the majority from steamrolling over it.

I realized that a while ago. Once you are able to say it better yourself I won't go so easy on you.

Majority rules. Not just when the majority are Democrats.

You redistrict every 10 years after the census to keep up with the movement of people, not to just gain seats.

We just went over this in my Govt class. Let me recap


Every ten years, the lines are redrawn to divide the districts into equal parts by population. But when this happens, who ever is in power, tries to get a small majority in many districts and a few districts that are nearly all the opposition, in effect they gain many seats with this small majorities, while they lose a few to a near majority.

The problem with what is going on is its only 3 years since the last census; there is no new info about people movements, so there is no reason to redraw the lines,

It’s a cheep move to gain more power; it does not show what the state really wants done. just what the party in power wants to do.

And before you say, they are in power so that is what the state wants, they may get into power and do a bad job, looking that they may be voted out, they use polls to redraw the lines so that they have a majority that supports them even though the majority of the people no longer support them.