Try sleeping at home

[saniflush 0]

“The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge.”

LINK

They make cattle prods for that!!!

Leave it to the most Liberal Democrat on the Supreme Court to doze off during a hearing. If it were Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Antonin Scalia or John Roberts dozing during a Supreme Court hearing, it would have made the front page news.

[Tigermike 3,048]

Since this is about voting districts, I have a question. What would be wrong with making districts permanent along county lines. I realize that is too simple and there is a real good reason for changing the districts every time a different party gains power, but what is the reason? Is there valid reasons to continue gerrymandering simply for political gain and power?

And yes you are correct the libs would be ranting if Thomas, Alito, Scalia or Roberts had dozed off. But who knows may MS Ginsburg had a late night out with Janet Reno.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

She was dozing because this is much ado about nothing - AGAIN.

Link to New York Times - see, a liberal source...

The {federal} court ruled on four issues: whether Texas could redistrict mid-decade; whether the plan discriminated on the basis of race; whether it was an unconstitutional gerrymander; and whether it diluted the voting strengths of minorities. In all cases, the judges decided, it did not violate the Constitution. But they said, "Whether the Texas Legislature has acted in the best interest of Texas is a judgment that belongs to the people who elected the officials whose act is challenged in this case."

Democrats accused Republicans of drawing districts to dilute the voting power of minorities. Representative Martin Frost of Dallas, a major target of Republican redistricters, said the court "effectively repealed the Voting Rights Act and turned back the clock on nearly 40 years of progress for minority Americans."

Representative Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said the ruling "reinforces the Republican party's declaration of war against the Hispanic and African-American communities throughout Texas."

Yeah, those evil Republicans really screwed minorities...

Six Hispanics and three blacks represent Texas in the House of Representatives — an increase of one more black congressman from before the 2003 map was put in place.

And he isn't a Republican black guy either!

To answer your question, Mike: Remember your government classes in high school , where the number of Representatives each state has in the House of Reps is determined by population? The number of representatives or seats in the U.S. House of Representatives has remained constant at 435 since 1911. You divide 435 members by the total population, and get a number that says each Congressperson represents "X" number of people. The average size of a congressional district based on the Census 2000 apportionment population will be 646,952. If your state has less than twice that number in total population, you get 1 seat. If your state has more than twice that number in total population, you again divide to determine the number of Congressional Districts you have. Then each District has to be drawn to include as close to that total number as possible in each district. In some census years, states will actually lose House seats if their population drops off and other states grow in population.

As a result of the apportionment based on Census 2000, 12 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives will shift among 18 states. Eight states will have more representatives in the 108th Congress, which convenes in January 2003, and ten states will have fewer representatives.  Of the eight states gaining seats, four — Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Texas — will each gain two seats. The other four — California, Colorado, Nevada, and North Carolina — will each gain one seat.

Of the ten states losing seats, two — New York and Pennsylvania — will each lose two seats. The other eight — Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin — will each lose one seat.

Link to source info

So it seems that the only rule regarding redistricting is this:

In the 1964 case of Reynolds v. Sims, the United States Supreme Court determined that the general basis of apportionment should be "one person, one vote." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). This rule means that, generally, electoral districts must be equal in population according to the most recent census so that each person’s vote is equally weighted.

Article 1, Section 2, of the United States Constitution requires congressional reapportionment to be based on the decennial census. Redistricting of other district offices is usually based on decennial census figures as well. Generally, congressional districts have been required to be as precisely equal in population as possible. However, the Legislature has more leeway in reapportioning other districts. The balance between rural, suburban, and urban areas, preservation of county lines and other political subdivisions within a district, and compactness of district lines are among the issues that may be considered in redistricting non-congressional districts, though the populations within the districts must remain substantially equal.