From Roll Call: Why 3 House Republicans Voted Against Repealing Obamacare

We discussed "instrumentalism" in the dual credit classes last week, which is the idea that political behavior has a purpose. Everything that is done, is done for a reason - though that reason might not seem initially obvious.

Here's one author's explanation of why three Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against the vehicle that would have allowed for a repeal of Obamacare - the budget reconciliation process. It should be noted that all three are from states that voted for Hillary Clinton.

- Click here for the article.

House Republican leaders gave their freshmen members a political gift Tuesday: The chance to vote "yes" on a symbolic bill to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

For three new Republican representatives, however, the repeal vote was an opportunity to vote "no." Republicans Bruce Poliquin of Maine, John Katko of New York and Robert Dold of Illinois were the lone three defections in either party on what's being billed as the chamber's 56th vote since 2011 to undo parts of the 2010 health law.

The defectors' rationale? They might hate Obamacare, but Republicans still haven't put forward a legislative proposal that would act as a substitute in the event the law ever got repealed.

"I am against Obamacare. It is hurting jobs, hurting our families, limiting choices," Poliquin told CQ Roll Call as he left the House floor Wednesday afternoon. "But I need to see a tangible, free-market replacement and this bill does not give us that. I need to see how we're gonna fix this and not just be someone who votes for the 56th time to repeal this.

"Show me a fix," Poliquin said, "and you'll have my support."

Katko went to Facebook to explain his "no" vote: "I am disappointed that the bill taken up by Congress today did not provide a real solution to the rising costs of healthcare, but I will continue to fight for comprehensive, bipartisan healthcare reform for Central New York in Congress."

He added that a campaign promise was to vote against Obamacare repeal votes that did not also include a replacement.

For more on the small number of Republicans voting against the repeal measure click here:

- Mixed Bag of Republicans Vote Against Obamacare Repeal Vehicle.

For future lectures, this article points out some of the caucuses in the House and Senate and the positions they are taking on repeal,.

From the Washington Post: How incumbency, not gerrymandering, may protect the Republican House majority

While the chances that Democrats win the majority of House seats has increased, it's still unlikely./

Here's analysis.

- Click here for the story.

As we enter the final stretch of the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump’s struggles have led to speculation about serious consequences for House and Senate Republicans. Some are even suggesting that control of the House is up for grabs.

The counterargument, however, is that House Republicans are protected by the Republican-led gerrymandering after the 2010 Census. As the story goes, this redistricting simultaneously increased the size of the Republican House majority and made those districts incredibly safe for the GOP legislators who represent them.

But how much is gerrymandering really helping House Republicans? My analysis suggests only a little bit. Incumbency appears to be the more important factor.

From Politico: Obama, Holder to lead post-Trump redistricting campaign The former attorney general heads up a new Democratic effort to challenge the GOP's supremacy in state legislatures and the U.S. House.

We are two years away from the next census - which apportions House seats to the states - and six year away from the next redistricting, which will be done by state legislatures. Democrats seek to undo what Republicans were able to accomplish the last go around.

- Click here for the article.

As Democrats aim to capitalize on this year’s Republican turmoil and start building back their own decimated bench, former Attorney General Eric Holder will chair a new umbrella group focused on redistricting reform—with the aim of taking on the gerrymandering that’s left the party behind in statehouses and made winning a House majority far more difficult.

The new group, called the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, was developed in close consultation with the White House. President Barack Obama himself has now identified the group—which will coordinate campaign strategy, direct fundraising, organize ballot initiatives and put together legal challenges to state redistricting maps—as the main focus of his political activity once he leaves office.

Though initial plans to be active in this year’s elections fell short, the group has been incorporated as a 527, with Democratic Governors Association executive director Elizabeth Pearson as its president and House Majority PAC executive director Ali Lapp as its vice president. They’ve been pitching donors and aiming to put together its first phase action plan for December, moving first in the Virginia and New Jersey state elections next year and with an eye toward coordination across gubernatorial, state legislative and House races going into the 2018 midterms.

“American voters deserve fair maps that represent our diverse communities—and we need a coordinated strategy to make that happen,” Holder said. “This unprecedented new effort will ensure Democrats have a seat at the table to create fairer maps after 2020."

Obama strongly endorsed Holder’s selection, and is planning more involvement in state races this year. But it’s in his post-presidency that redistricting will be a priority for his fundraising and campaigning.

“Where he will be most politically engaged will be at the state legislative level, with an eye on redistricting after 2020,” said White House political director David Simas, who’s been briefing Obama on the group’s progress since it started coming together at the beginning of the summer.

The group’s incorporation follows a pitch made to major donors in Philadelphia during the Democratic convention in July, led by Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, along with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rep. Ben Ray Luján. The group hasn’t filed any financial reports as of yet and isn’t releasing figures for money raised, but operatives say that several organizations have donated initial funds in its early stages of fundraising.

From Vox: Democrats really might have a shot at taking the House. Here's the math.

Still a long shot though, despite indications that they are on track to take back the Senate.

- Click here for the article.

Even though most analysts think it’s unlikely — Democrats would need to pick up 30 seats, including in reliably Republican territory — there is one political analyst who has a theory of how it could happen.

Geoffrey Skelley, who closely tracks congressional races at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, suggests there’s a crude shorthand for evaluating the battle for the House: Look to see if Clinton can beat Trump by 6 points or more in the presidential race. If that happens, Skelley projects 50 seats would be in play.

If Clinton wins by 6 points — and current polling suggests she might — it would mean Democrats could have a real, genuine, honest-to-goodness shot at pulling off whatlooked impossible just a few months ago.

By most projections, Democrats look more likely to get closer to 15 or 20 seats, not the 30 they’d need. Many states have gerrymandered safe Republican seats that would require an extraordinary landslide to do the trick. In 2012, for instance, Democratic House candidates won 1.7 million more votes than their Republican foes — and still ended up with 33 fewer members of the House. This is why even many Democrats believe taking the House is unlikely.

But unlikely doesn’t mean impossible. Here’s the math behind how Democrats’ long-shot dream might just become a reality.

From the New York Times: Tim Huelskamp, Anti-Establishment House Republican, Loses Primary in Kansas

Committee membership and constituency service still seems to matter, even in the age of the Tea Party.

- Click here for the article.

Representative Tim Huelskamp, a member of the hard-line conservativeFreedom Caucus, lost to a political newcomer on Tuesday in the Republican primary for his Kansas district.

Mr. Huelskamp, who was elected to Congress in 2010 and quickly earned a reputation for frustrating Republican leaders, was defeated byRoger Marshall, an obstetrician from Great Bend, in the primary for the First Congressional District, which covers western Kansas and much of the state’s center.

Mr. Marshall won with the support of business groups and the agriculture lobby, which had turned its back on Mr. Huelskamp after Speaker John A. Boehner had him removed from the Agriculture Committee in 2012, a crucial position for a legislator from a farm state. Mr. Huelskamp was a frequent critic of Mr. Boehner, who resigned last year amid strife with the Republican Party’s right wing.

“Getting kicked off the Agriculture Committee is a crime that can’t be forgiven,” Brian Scheideman, a 52-year-old driver’s education instructor, said after voting for Mr. Marshall in Wamego, The Associated Press reported. “I don’t mind the independent voice, but you’ve got to figure out how to work with people.”

Mr. Marshall had the support of the Kansas Farm Bureau, the Kansas Livestock Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, according to The A.P. Mr. Huelskamp had the backing of the billionaire Koch brothers’ political network, the Club for Growth and conservative colleagues who visited the state to campaign for him.

From Vox: House Democrats are staging a sit-in to force a vote on gun control

This doesn't happen everyday.

- Click here for the article.

A week after a Senate filibuster forced a vote on gun control measures, Democrats in the House of Representatives are holding a sit-in on the House floor to try to get Republicans there to do the same.

"The time for silence and patience is long gone," Rep. John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat and hero of the civil rights movement who is leading the sit-in, said in a stirring speech Wednesday morning. "The American people are demanding action. Do we have the courage, do we have the raw courage to make at least a down payment on ending gun violence in America?"

Here's a look at it from a media perspective.

- How C-SPAN is skirting the House TV blackout on Democrats' sit-in.

A more comprehensive look from Roll Call:

- House Democrats Stage Chamber Floor Sit-In For Gun Vote.

Repost: Texas' 14th and 22nd congressional districts

For an up close look at one aspect of Congress, here's a look at two U.S. House districts. ACC straddles these two. Pete Olson represents the 22nd district, Randt Weber represents the 14th.

Here's the map of the 14th Congressional district:



- Wikipedia: Texas's 14th congressional district.

And here's the 22nd Congressional District




- Wikipedia: Texas's 22nd congressional district.

If you scroll down to ACC - click here for District Viewer -  you'll see that the campus straddles both districts. We'll look at the people who hold each office, and factors about them, in the next week or two.

About the race to replace Boehner

A second option for this week's written assignment for GOVT 2305 is to look at the impact the resignation of John Boehner - who became speaker because he was the leader of the House Republicans. His resignation from Congress was also his resignation from that leadership position. Some background might be in order - the section on parties and committees in Congress covers this as well.

For a look at whose who in party leadership and in what the House Republican Conference is, click here:

- Wikipedia: Party Leaders in the United States house of Representatives.
- House: Leadership.
- Wikipedia: House Republican Conference.
- House: House Republicans.

Here is, roughly, a rank ordering of leaders in the House Majority

1 - The Speaker of the House
2 - The Majority Leader (Kevin McCarthy)
3 - The Majority Whip (Steve Scalise)
4 - Republican Conference Chairman (Cathy McMorris Rodgers)
5 - Republican Policy Committee Chairman. (Luke Messer)
6 - The National Republican Congressional Committee. (Greg Walden)

Now that the top has been - or is about to be - vacated, there will be a struggle to move up. The question will be whether this will be a smooth process where people go up a notch, or whether there will be a power struggle, especially among those members of the more conservative wing of the party who want to increase their influence over policy.

Here are some random readings about what's up as of now - as of tomorrow all this will be dated.

- Politico: Resignation triggers all-out leadership scramble.
- NYT: Candidates in Play for Republican Leadership.
- Politico: Paul Ryan endorses Tom Price over Steve Scalise for House majority leader.
- Huffington Post: Months After White Supremacy Scandal, Steve Scalise May Become House Majority Leader.
- CNN: Majority leader race: Price gets support, McMorris Rodgers declines bid.
- Politico: McMorris Rodgers urges GOP to pull together.
- IndyStar: Tully: GOP ‘Hail Marys’ aren’t enough, Rep. Messer says.
- Roll Call: Leadership Roundup: Scalise Is in; New Talk of a Trey Gowdy Bid.

From the Washington Post: 5 reasons why being Speaker of the House ain’t what it used to be

The rules in Congress have changed dramatically in recent years, so it might be unfair to compare Speaker Boehner with his predecessors. The author argues that the institutional powers that allowed previous speakers to control the House don't exist anymore.

- Click here for the article.

Here's a list of what's changed:

1. Earmarking ban.

2. Politics/ideology trumps loyalty. 

3. More paths to power.

4. The weakening of political parties.

5. Job uncertainty.

From House.Gov: Origins & Development: From the Constitution to the Modern House

As I'm rewriting my power points I'll incorporate some of this - if not most of this - information in them. The website of the U.S. House of Representatives walks through the development of the U.S. House beginning with the ratification of the Constitution.

- Click here for the page.

It contains a variety of sections related to the parts of the Constitution that affect the design of the chamber. These are especially topic given current events:

- Speaker of the House. Since there's a move underway in the House Republican Conference to unseat John Boehner.

- Power of the Purse. Since the fiscal year is almost over and appropriations bills still need to be passed.

- Investigations and Oversight. Since its habitual for Congress to investigate every aspect of the activities of the president when one different parties control each branch.

A federal district judge allows another lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act to go forward

ScotusBlog describes the case - and states that it breaks new Constitutional ground. This should be of interest to 2305 students who are starting to dig into Article One of the U.S. Constitution. It involves who controls the national purse strings. this story also illustrates the checks and balances - albeit one of the more unusual ones.

- Click here for the article.
- Click here for the ruling.

It looks at a key part of Article One - one we talked about in class last week, the appropriations clause - and asks whether the House of Representatives has standing to sue the executive branch in how it is implementing the law it passed a few years back.

From the decision: 

Article I of the United States Constitution established the Congress, which comprises a House of Representatives and a Senate. U.S. Const. art. I, § 1. Only these two bodies, acting together, can pass laws—including the laws necessary to spend public money. In this respect, Article I is very clear: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . . .” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7.

Through this lawsuit, the House of Representatives complains that Sylvia Burwell, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Jacob Lew, the Secretary of the Treasury, and their respective departments (collectively the Secretaries) have spent billions of unappropriated dollars to support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The House further alleges that Secretary Lew and Treasury have, under the guise of implementing regulations, effectively amended the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate by delaying its effect and narrowing its scope.  

The Secretaries move to dismiss, arguing that the House lacks standing to sue. They argue that only the Executive has authority to implement the laws, and urge this Court to stay out of a quintessentially political fight in which the House is already well armed. The House opposes, adamant that it has been injured in several concrete ways, none of which can be ameliorated through the usual political processes. The only issue before the Court is whether the House can sue the Secretaries; the merits of this lawsuit await another day

And the judge says it can go forward with that issue.

ScotusBlog explains the nuances of the House of Representatives complaint:

As part of the ACA’s policy of helping millions of lower-income Americans to obtain health insurance at affordable rates, the law has a variety of subsidy provisions. The Supreme Court in June upheld the system that provides lower-income consumers with a form of tax credit to help them afford policies that are sold on insurance marketplaces (or “exchanges”); that financial provision is not at issue in the House’s lawsuit. But the lawsuit explicitly targets a mechanism to encourage health insurance companies to reduce the costs of coverage for lower-income individuals.

The House claimed in court that, although Congress has in fact voted the funds to pay for the subsidy system keyed to the insurance exchanges, it has never approved any funds to cover the expense of the cost-sharing approach — technically, the “cost-sharing offsets.” The ACA required insurance companies taking part in the new program to specifically reduce the co-pays charged to consumers when they visit doctors’ offices or other health facilities. The federal government then steps in to reimburse the insurers for absorbing those costs.

In going to court, the House contended that the Obama administration has asked for, but never obtained, actual legislation appropriating those reimbursement funds, but instead has simply taken the money out of accounts at the Treasury and sent checks to the insurers. This, it argued, was a direct violation of the Constitution’s command that no federal funds may be spent unless approved, in advance, by Congress.

The administration has argued in response that the ACA itself provided all the authority that the government needed to finance the cost-sharing provision, so there was no need to ask Congress explicitly to put up the money. Officials also have disputed the House claim that they did, in fact, ask for appropriations.

What is the most gerrymandered U.S. House district in Texas?

Here are a few candidates, many of these are in our area:

These are pulled from the TLC's Texas Redistricting site.

- District 2.
- District 15.
- District 18.
- District 22.
- District 28.
- District 29.
- District 30.
- District 32.
- District 33.
- District 34.
- District 35.

What is a majority leader anyway?

This primarily for 2305 - there is no similar position in the Texas Legislature (House or Senate) because the Speaker and Lieutenant Governor are far more powerful in each chamber, which means there is less need for a majority leaders. Parties matter less in the Texas Legislature also.

But in the 2305's section on Parties and Committees in Congress, mention is made of the party leadership structure so this illustrates that point. For now, its best to understand this - the House Majority leader is the second highest position in the majority party in the House of Representatives. It's #2 because the leader of the party is nominated by the party to be Speaker of the House when it convenes after each election. Since the majority party is the majority, they get to select the Speaker.

So what happened earlier this week was that the primary voters in Virginia's 7th District defeated the second most power Republican in the House by not renominating him for the general election. That has never happened before in American history.

Here are a few links for further info about the position of House majority leader, and of leadership in the House in general.

- Wikipedia: Majority Leader.
- Wikipedia: Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives.
- NCSL: Roles and Responsibilities of Selected Leadership Positions.
- US House: majorityleader.gov.
- US House: Majority Leaders of the House (1899 to present).

I want to call special attention to this report from the Congressional Research Service:

- The Role of the House Majority Leader: An Overview.

Here are the opening two paragraphs from the report:

The majority leader in the contemporary House is second-in-command behind
the Speaker of the majority party. Typically, the majority leader functions as the
Speaker’s chief lieutenant or “field commander” for day-to-day management of the
floor. Although the majority leader’s duties are not especially well-defined, they
have evolved to the point where it is possible to spotlight two fundamental and often
interlocking responsibilities that orient the majority leader’s work: institutional and
party.

From an institutional perspective, the majority leader has a number of duties.
Scheduling floor business is a prime responsibility of the majority leader. Although
scheduling the House’s business is a collective activity of the majority party, the
majority leader has a large say in shaping the chamber’s overall agenda and in
determining when, whether, how, or in what order legislation is taken up. In
addition, the majority leader is active in constructing winning coalitions for the
party’s legislative priorities; acting as a public spokesman — defending and
explaining the party’s program and agenda; serving as an emissary to the White
House, especially when the President is of the same party; and facilitating the orderly
conduct of the House’s business.

Alvin Community College straddles two congressional districts

In 2305 we are starting to look at Congress, and one way to approach it is to look at how ACC is represented in Congress. We all reside in a congressional district which - unless it is vacant - is occupied by a person who most likely is a member of one of the two major parties and is also on a standing committee or two. We are also represented by a couple members of the Senate.

So as we look at the behavior of members of Congress and the design of the institution, it might be best to do so by focusing on the people who represent this area.

For ACC, the creates a bit of a problem because the ACC campus is split. Most of it is in the 22nd Congressional district - represented by Pete Olson - bit a tiny piece in the south west part pf the property is in the 14th Congressional district - represented interestingly enough by ACC alumnus Randy Weber. This gives us two members of Congress to look at.

I'm still figuring out the best way to get the right image on the blog, but this link to District Viewer allows you to hone in on the local area: Click here to play around with it.

From the Washington Post: The death of the political middle, in 1 PowerPoint slide

More evidence that there is no political middle in Congress:

There are any number of reasons for this disappearance — partisan gerrymandering and closed primaries being the two most obvious — but the numbers are unbelievably stark, particularly when you consider that roughly 30 percent of the electorate consider themselves political independents. (According to exit polling, 29 percent of people named themselves independents in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.)

The slide above also explains why there will be no grand or even big bargain on debt and spending — or much of anything else — anytime soon. The political incentive to make deals simply does not exist in the House and, in fact, there is almost always a disincentive for members to work across the aisle. (This is less true in the Senate where a centrist coalition — Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Kelly Ayotte, Joe Manchin, Mark Pryor, Mark Begich etc — exists although that coalition has shrunk in recent years too.)

The deal-makers — as we have seen from the last month in the House — are largely gone. The two people who do seem capable of crafting deals — Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — come from a different time in politics. (Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972, McConnell in 1984.) The middle’s voice in the House is so soft as to be almost non-existent. And it’s hard to see that changing — at least in the near term.

Have Republicans hit a sweet spot in their gerrymandering strategy?

The Economist suggest that they have.

In the redistricting that happened after the 2010 census - and the 2010 election where Republicans did very very well which allowed them to control a large number of state legislatures - a large districts were drawn where Republicans dominated, but not too much. Republican votes were spread enough to guarantee majorities in a large enough number of districts to ensure control of legislature despite having fewer overall votes than Democrats.

They guaranteed themselves a majority, with a maximum number of safe seats. This makes them immune to negative opinion about things like shutting government down.

It was a neat trick:

Republicans have managed to both make their seats safer, and ensure there are more of them, despite the fact that they lost the overall popular congressional vote. How did they do that?

By finding the golden mean. The ideal strategy for elections is to make sure your districts have just enough of a partisan tilt to ensure you'll almost certainly win them, but not so much that you win them overwhelmingly and waste your votes. Meanwhile, you want to cram the opposition's voters into districts which they win by overwhelming margins and thus waste their votes. Republicans can make sure their seats are both safer and more numerous by achieving lots of districts where they're likely to win by a safe but not extravagant margin, say 15-30%. If they pursue this strategy, they should wind up with relatively fewer seats that tilt overwhelmingly Republican. Meanwhile for Democrats, whose votes have been "cracked" or "packed" such that they lose more districts, the districts that they do hold would be more likely to be overwhelmingly Democratic than is the case for Republicans.

And this is what the Republicans' redistricting appear to have achieved. Of members of congress who won their districts with a margin of 60% or more in 2012, 18 were Republicans, while 29 were Democrats. In the crucial safe-but-not-overwhelming zone, with victory margins between 15% and 30%, Republicans won 92 seats while Democrats won 42. The average margin of victory for Republicans was 28.6%; for Democrats, it was 35.7%.

So there you go. This is one big reason why Republicans in the House are likely to react to widespread anger over the shutdown by becoming more, rather than less, confrontational. The vote distributions in their districts would have to swing by 10% or more for any sizable number of them to lose their seats, and that's not very likely to happen.

Here's why House Republicans will not face backlash against government shutdown

Because they - like Democrats as well - represent safe gerrymandered districts. Which might distort the original intent of the design of the House.

From Slate: 

When optimists try to predict the end of the government shutdown/debt limit wars, they suggest that Republicans will, eventually, have to buckle. Polls showthat most voters blame them, not the president, for the quagmire—hey, who can argue with polls? History shows that Republicans were blamed for the winter shutdown of 1995–1996—who can argue with history?

Republicans can, and they do. The gerrymanders of 2011 added to their natural geographic advantage over urban/suburban Democrats and gave them a House they simply don’t think they can lose. In 2012 they proved it, winning 1.36 million fewer votes than Democratic candidates but keeping a 33-seat majority.According to the Cook Political Report, 205 of 435 House districts are solidly Republican, basically impossible to lose without an unexpected bribery or sexting scandal. Only 163 districts are solidly Democratic. If Democrats swept the table and won all the districts currently rated as tossups or “leaning” Republican, they’d win 213 seats, five short of a majority.

That was always the long-term Republican plan. In 2010, when voter anger was already guaranteeing a fantastic party comeback, groups like the Redistricting Majority Project (nicknamed REDMAP) told donors that “the party controlling that effort controls the drawing of the maps—shaping the political landscape for the next 10 years.”

What exactly does a Speaker do anyway?

I though this list from a helpful stranger named Jack on Yahoo answers was worth sharing:

There was a time when Speakers of the House were all powerful. Those days are long gone. Nevertheless, Speakers still possess a few formidable powers worth noting:

1. The Speaker is the chair of the steering committee that chooses all committee chairs.

2. The Speaker directs all bills to their respective committees. (This is a HUGE power -- as if the Speaker hates the bill he can send it to a committee he knows will kill it -- or vice versa).

3. The Speaker is personally responsible for elevating members to the all powerful (and never to be messed with) "Rules Committee". 

4. The Speaker is responsible for organizing floor debates, ruling on the acceptability of floor motions, and recognizing members who wish to address the House. 

5. In any dealings with the Senate, the Speaker appoints all members of conference committees. 

6. Because of all of these things, the Speaker is the agenda setter of the House. What bills are heard? What bills simply get thrown away? What policies do we wish to impact, and how? These are all questions that only the Speaker gets to answer.

I'll keep posting criticisms of the Speaker Boehner's job performance, but this gives us a guideline for evaluating him.

Its important to keep in mind that while the Speaker is meant to preside over the entire House - and is elected by the entire House - each party nominates its leader for the position. Obviously the party which holds the majority will win, so the Speaker is less a neutral presiding officer than an advocate for the interests of the majority party.

The 2003 Texas Redistricting

The case involving Tom Delay stemmed from his efforts to obtain a Republican Majority in the Texas House in the election of 2002, which would have been the first time the Republican Party had controlled the institution since Reconstruction.

Of course it was a very different Republican Party back then - nationalist in outlook and supportive of - Civil Rights.

What made this controversial was that DeLay's intent was to enable the Republican Party to draw new districts for the House of Representatives and give the Republican majority in the House a few extra seats. These are normally only redrawn in the legislative sessions immediately following the census when House seats are reapportioned. The Democratic Party still controlled the Texas Senate though, so Republicans were unable to dominate the redistricting process.

The legislature elected in 2000 was able to draw the US House districts that allowed the Democratic Party to continue to dominate the state delegation - there were 17 Democrats to 15 Republicans. The one elected in 2002 was able to redraw the districts, target certain Democrats - mostly white males - and result in a scheme that elected 21 Republicans and 11 Democrats.

This demonstrates the effectiveness of gerrymandering.

What got DeLay into trouble was that the manner in which donations from corporation were funneled to candidates. Corporate financing for candidates was illegal at that time. Prosecutors argued that DeLay circumvented those rules by funneling corporate money through his account to those of the Texas Senate candidates. The appellate court seems to have argued that these funds were not meant for the campaign, but rather to have access to DeLay.

As we should expect, a Wikipedia page exists that provides an overview of the 2003 redistricting effort.

We will discuss elections in Texas soon enough - this gives us a head start.

Here are more sources:

- The Texas Gerrymander
- Justice staff saw Texas districting as illegal
- The Killer D's
- Sourcewatch

While a minority might be powerless in the US House of Representatives, it is not in the US Senate

A useful reminder by James Fallows.

In the House, a minority is indeed "largely powerless." Just ask Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, et al about how life has changed since 2010.

In the Senate, it's very different. There a minority is extremely powerful. Just ask Mitch McConnell, who has made 60 votes -- not a simple majority of 51 -- the de-facto minimum for getting either nominees or legislation approved.

Here's one way to think about it: in both the Senate and the House, the minority party has about the same proportional strength. The Republicans now have 46 Senate seats, obviously 46% of the total. And the 201 Democrats in the House are just over 46% of its makeup.

But in the House, those 46% might as well be 0%, since everything is run by majority vote. While in the Senate, 46% is a fully empowered blocking minority -- which can keep judgeships vacant, legislation from being approved, and essentially anything else from being done. That is, as long as they vote as a bloc, as they usually have; and are committed to making the filibuster not an emergency matter but a daily routine, as under McConnell they have done.