[Mb-civic] The GOP's Order on The Court - David S. Broder - Washington Post op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

The GOP's Order on The Court

By David S. Broder
Sunday, March 5, 2006; B07

Ken Mehlman has not had an easy time of it in his first year as chairman 
of the Republican National Committee. As point man for the White House's 
political team, he experienced defeats at the hands of the Democrats in 
last November's two big gubernatorial races -- and growing criticism 
from within GOP ranks about President Bush's policy stumbles. From 
Social Security to Hurricane Katrina to the Dubai Ports World deal, 
Mehlman has been on the receiving end of brickbats.

But last week he could watch as two politically important victories 
became likely in an arena where Republicans still hold sway -- the 
Supreme Court.

The justices' questions during oral arguments strongly suggested that 
legislation enacted by Vermont to limit campaign spending would be 
struck down -- as Republicans hope.

In a more complex case, challenging Texas's mid-decade Republican 
congressional redistricting plan, the hints from the high court bench 
were that the substance of the scheme -- if not every feature -- will 
survive judicial scrutiny.

For a party as hard-pressed as Republicans are these days, the prospect 
of twin victories when the Supreme Court hands down its decisions this 
spring is welcome news indeed.

It shows the advantage the GOP has gained with seven of the nine seats 
on the Supreme Court being filled by appointees of Republican presidents.

The Vermont case was a relative slam-dunk. Under the controlling Supreme 
Court precedent, now almost 30 years old, political contributions may be 
limited to avoid the appearance of corruption, but political spending -- 
which the court said directly implicates freedom of expression -- may not.

Vermont challenged that decision with sliding-scale limits on spending 
for races from governor down to state legislature. But Chief Justice 
John Roberts questioned whether there really was any corruption problem 
in Vermont, and Justice Stephen Breyer -- one of the two Democrats on 
the bench -- joined in the public worries about the limits being so low 
as to stifle competition.

The Texas case is harder to forecast. It stems from the legislature, 
with a newly elected Republican majority, approving in 2003 a 
congressional redistricting plan, promoted by Rep. Tom DeLay, that 
yielded five more Republican seats in the 32-member delegation; a sixth 
was added when Rep. Ralph Hall switched parties. The previous map had 
been drawn up by the courts in 2001 when the legislature, then divided 
between the parties, deadlocked.

In numerous briefs filed by critics and supporters of the Republican 
plan, the court was asked to consider the propriety of any mid-decade 
redistricting, the rights and wrongs of the oddly shaped districts that 
resulted and the impact on minority constituencies that enjoy special 
protection under the Voting Rights Act.

There was little in the oral argument to suggest the court would find 
any constitutional bar to the mid-decade redistricting -- especially 
since it was the first plan to emerge from the legislature.

As for the gerrymandering of district lines, even in odd configurations, 
the court has traditionally chosen to stay out of that political 
thicket, and Justice David Souter, often the most liberal of the 
Republicans, told the attorney challenging the plan that it's impossible 
"to take partisanship out of the political process."

The impact on Latino and African American voters appeared to trouble 
some of the justices. Questioning showed that about 100,000 Hispanics 
had been moved out of a south Texas district, improving the election 
prospects of Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla. The state contended they 
were shifting Democrats -- not Latinos -- and Roberts, for one, appeared 
to buy the argument that the motivation was political, not racial.

Mehlman, who supervised the Republicans' brief on the case, came to 
court to watch the arguments and -- with all the usual lawyerly cautions 
about not reading the justices' minds -- said afterward, "I feel very 
good about it."

Some scholars with less of a partisan bias warn that the Vermont case 
will leave the escalating cost of campaigns unchecked and the Texas case 
may unleash a national wave of repeated redistricting every time a 
legislature changes hands.

Mehlman said he thinks those fears are exaggerated. Few states would 
contemplate setting campaign-spending limits as low as Vermont did, he 
said, and the Texas circumstances -- legislative gridlock preventing 
correction of an earlier districting plan open to criticism as a 
Democratic gerrymander -- are unique.

Besides, after the year he's had, he's in no position to look a gift 
horse in the mouth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/03/AR2006030301753.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060305/b72c6a72/attachment.htm