Supreme clusterfudge

Only because I'm spending this weekend with my family am I substituting the 'candy' for the copulation. I expect to never again hear conservatives complain about "activist judges".

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an emergency challenge by Texas Republicans to judge-drawn maps that would govern next year’s state and federal elections.

The justices (Friday night) temporarily blocked a lower court order that put the maps in place. The high court said it will hear the case on an expedited basis, with arguments Jan. 9.

I'm not going to interrupt any more of a wonderful weekend watching my lovely niece the advertising model marry the man of her dreams (the former and still-occasional fiddle player for Pat Green) thinking about the Supreme Court's patently ridiculous, precedent-setting decision to give Greg Abbott a hearing on the Texas GOP's law-breaking maps. I'll instead direct to those who have already expressed some measure of surprise and caution.

Michael Li: SCOTUS stays interim maps

It is unclear for the moment what this means for Texas elections. For now, there are no legally enforceable maps for state house, senate, or congressional districts, but filing for other races continues with a December 15 deadline. It’s not clear though whether the primary will be moved or will be bifurcated as the State of Texas has suggested.

It’s also unclear what this means for candidates who have filed for office or resigned from office in anticipation of filing. Will candidates be entitled to their filing fees back? Will candidates who resigned from office under ‘resign to run’ laws be entitled to rescind their decisions?

The order also leaves party organization somewhat in confusion since parties organize conventions and select national delegates by state senate districts or congressional districts.

The process of redrawing precinct boundaries also presumably has come to a halt. At the same time, the current precinct lines no longer can be used since the state has new state board of education districts and, in many counties, new county commission district lines- some of which split precincts. Should counties draw new precinct lines taking into account those new districts and seek preclearance of those lines? Will they have to do it all over again once the legislative and congressional maps come to rest?

So in other words, a practical mess whatever the merits of the case.

Li also links to SCOTUSblog (the best read of the potential implications) and Election Law Blog for additional legal reaction. Excerpt from ELB:

Given what the Court did, with no stated dissents, it is not clear why this had to wait until Friday at 7 pm eastern to issue.

More importantly, it is also not clear what is supposed to happen now in Texas.  What districts can be used, if the districts crafted by the three-judge court are now “stayed pending further order of this Court?”

Off the Kuff: SCOTUS issues a stay

I have no freaking clue what comes next. Dozens of candidates have filed for offices, many of them have already raised and spent money, and they may wind up not being eligible for the district they have chosen to run for.

Burnt Orange Report: US Supreme Court Stays Congressional, Legislative Maps

And by "Texas" in that last paragraph, the AP means Attorney General Greg Abbott and hyper-partisan Republicans, whose argument can be summed up as "Waaaaaah!! The San Antonio courts didn't disenfranchise enough Democrats minority, young, and poor people! Antonin Scalia, fix it!" 

Greg's Opinion: SCOTUS Stays

I’m a bit surprised that we still don’t have a sense of what this does to filing periods. I’m assuming that there has to be an open window for filing after the Supreme Court has anything to say, but it seems that we’re in enough of an unknown that there’s just no telling. It’s entirely conceivable that the SCOTUS could go through all of this exercise and not change a thing about the map. In theory that might seem to allow for March primaries, but the absentee ballots can’t be printed until things are finalized (another domino). But even if nothing changes, would there still be a re-filing period? Considering that Thursday is the deadline for filing, that may make for some very awkward and tough decisions.

Letters from Texas: What Friday night's SCOTUS TX redistricting ruling means

Most of all, however, I think that politicos of both Parties and all ilk should follow this one simple instruction: chill out. Without a doubt, lawyers and judges will soon be holding telephonic hearings, during which clarifications will be given, guidance be shared, and more will be revealed. Until then, there is simply nothing anyone can do besides enjoy their weekend.

I have substantial concerns, as the SCOTUS blog link intimates above, that this Court wishes to make some new law, which may include emasculating federal judge panels from correcting wrongs written by hyper-partisan state legislatures, and maybe even take a stab at killing the Voting Rights Act altogether.

But I'm taking Harold's advice. As Scarlett O'Hara said, "I'm not going to think about that today right now. If I do, I'll go crazy. I'll think about that tomorrow."

Update: From Republican attorney Robert Miller's blog ...

I believe it highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will simply affirm the interim maps after its January 9 oral arguments. At this point, it appears that a majority of the Supreme Court intends to invalidate some or all of the San Antonio court’s interim maps.

The Supreme Court may also examine whether Section 5 of the VRA remains constitutional. The State of Texas has hinted at possibly bringing a constitutional challenge to Section 5 on the grounds that it usurps Texas’ sovereignty over its election system. Many observers believe that a majority of the Supreme Court has been waiting for a case to declare Section 5 of the VRA unconstitutional, and this may be it.

Yep.

David Stern really is trying to kill the NBA

Light posting continuing through the weekend as niece's wedding and associated family celebrations culminate. -Ed.

This development yesterday stunned even me, and I'm not all that stunnable any more.

In a spectacular and unprecedented turn of events, the Rockets went from a massive overhaul of their roster to a mountain of wrecked plans.

The Rockets had reached agreement on a three-team deal to get center Pau Gasol from the Lakers, sending top scorers Kevin Martin and Luis Scola to the Hornets.

Hours later, the trade that the three teams involved considered a done deal and had been the key to the Rockets' plans was torn apart when the NBA stepped in and killed it.

The league rescinded the deal, then disputed reports that it acted because of objections by NBA owners to having the NBA-owned Hornets send star New Orleans guard Chris Paul to the Lakers.

I was prepared to be as disappointed about the trade's implications for the Rockets as I was about all of the Astros' offseason machinations (read this for some good news on that front) but for Stern to take an action like this is astounding. Stern is essentially the owner of the Hornets franchise since the league assumed control of the team following its financial difficulties (related to the city of New Orleans' own fate). Former NBA player Dell Demps runs the team day-to-day as GM, and a deal for the Hornet's star Paul has been developing ever since the atrocious owners' lockout of players finally ended.

It's not as if Stern came back from a weeks-long vacation after having forced the NBAPA to kneel before him and find that his fellow greed-consumed billionaires had made a mess in the kitchen. In fact, after showing the usual iron-will solidarity management always musters when their opponent is labor, a bunch of crybabies complained about the big, bad Lakers getting all the puzzle pieces, and Stern caved to them.

If a good trade is, as the cliché goes, one in which everyone wins, David Stern stepped in and with one overbearing, heavy-handed swipe, turned the Rockets’ three-team deal Thursday into one in which everyone loses. [...]

In a statement, league spokesmen explained that Stern stepped in because the NBA owns the Hornets and the NBA killed the deal “for basketball reasons.”

This was as opposed to the explanation absolutely everyone else believed, that league owners did not want the team they own to help the Lakers by sending them Chris Paul with Dwight Howard likely to follow. The explanation seemed even more ridiculous when Yahoo Sports got a hold of an email Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert sent to Stern. [...]

No matter what anyone thinks of how the deal would impact their team, killing it causes damage that starts with the trade and quickly spreads.

I'll let you click the links for the basketball implications. What I see is -- obviously -- more political.

David Stern got a lot of hosannahs from the exclusive club that employs him after he made the players knuckle under in the lockout. With some players going overseas -- and staying there, like Duke's Kyle Singler -- owners don't appear to see the long-term damage they did to their franchises in exchange for the short-term immediate profit. They are indeed counting on the fans to sulk and grumble for this season, maybe the next one, then forget all about the strife and come back, bringing their wallets with them.

While he may be right about that, the unintended consequence is that there will be a stronger market for professional basketball players outside the United States in the coming years. Purposely diminishing the value of the skill set in your labor force is a poor management strategy. Naturally Stern doesn't see it that way; he's got a gaggle of colicky one-tenth-of-one-percenters to coddle, after all. Damn the future, it's all about now. Sound like a familiar corporate refrain?

Rockets general manager Daryl Morey and the Lakers’ Mitch Kupchak spent countless hours hammering out the deal, as they and GMs around the league had been given the clear understanding that Demps was fully authorized to do his job with the only stipulation that he not exceed the luxury tax line.

They were also never told that they had to make a deal that would appeal not only to the teams involved, but to the commissioner.

While Stern is in no way qualified to judge the quality of players or trades, he ought to be able to do better than this as commissioner. Instead, he hammered the league’s credibility, actually living up to the sort of doubts that drive the conspiracy theorists.

One can assume that (Rockets owner) Leslie Alexander and (Lakers owner) Jim Buss have been calling Stern and hitting him as hard as he smashed their trade. But they are badly outnumbered. And as wrongfully as they must feel that their employee mistreated their teams, he did not do anywhere near the damage as to the team the NBA owns.

And not that he gives a shit, but there can't be a single NBA player sending Stern so much as moldy fruitcake for Christmas, much less a card.

It would serve him justly if all of the European stars the league has recruited and signed over the past few seasons eventually went back home. And took more Americans with them. Read more about Singler's decision to play in Spain long-term and the way the NBA's rookie salary cap affects late first- and early second-round draftees, and you can see where the owners have screwed the pooch.

Stern needs to organize a winter bowling league with Kirk Kerkorian and "Chainsaw Al" Dunlap so they can swap stories and laugh their asses off.

Because he seems to be worthless for anything else.

Update: Rejected Chris Paul Trade Prompts Expletive-Laden Tirade By Enraged NBA Executive

Some took it as proof the system, even after a five-month lockout, is still flawed, while others simply called the league a "complete joke."

But nobody has been as blunt as one anonymous NBA executive, who was quoted at length in a report on Yahoo! Sports.

"We were all told by the league he was a tradeable player, and now they're saying that [Hornets general manager Dell Demps] doesn't have the authority to make the trade?" the unnamed executive told Adrian Wojnarowski. "Now they're saying that Dell is an idiot, that he can't do his job. [Expletive] this whole thing.

"David's drunk on power, and he doesn't give a [expletive] about the players, and he doesn't give a [expletive] about the hundreds of hours the teams put in to make that deal."

Update II:

Multiple sources are reporting that the Chris Paul trade is not dead and still being worked on, as the NBA attempts to save face following Thursday's trade veto by David Stern.

Stern is going to try to get the Rockets to give the Hornets both Courtney Lee and Patrick Patterson in an attempt to sell that Lamar Odom's age made the original deal bad. It's absurd, but that's how they'll try to package it. How this ends is anybody's guess, but we're leaning toward Paul becoming a Laker through an altered trade of some type. Sadly, if the Lakers add anything else to this deal we'd veto it from their perspective and they will too. The only thing that is certain is that we're all dumber for having gone through this episode.

Occupy Congress today, Occupy the Gulf next Monday, Dec. 12

Stay afraid, Frank Luntz.

Just a day after 31 Occupy D.C. protesters were arrested after a clash with police in McPherson Square, a similar kind of demonstration is setting up camp on the National Mall. 

Hundreds are expected to converge in Washington for a "Take Back the Capitol." On Monday demonstrators including members of OurDC, the unemployed, faith leaders, labor unions and others set up what they called "The People's Camp."

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) visited the camp. Referring to the Capitol, which she said has become overrun by Tea Party members, she told a crowd it was "time to take back the 'People's House' for the people."

Andrew Duke (C), Chief of Staff to Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-TX, tells members of Good Jobs, Great Houston and other progressive groups "occupying" Hensarling's office that the Representative will not be able to meet with them in the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, DC, Dec. 6.

At the heart of the movement is a similar message to Occupy Wall Street. The group says it wants Congress and elected leaders to represent the 99 percent of every day Americans, instead of the wealthiest 1 percent.

Unlike the tent cities by the "Occupiers," those taking part in "Take Back the Capitol" will only work out of their units during the day. They plan to sleep in area churches at night.

The group has the following tentative plans for the week:

- Tuesday: Visit congressional offices
- Wednesday: Swarm lobbying offices on K Street
- Thursday: Speak-outs throughout the Capitol, national prayer vigil and a mass march on key congressional leaders
- Friday: Pack up and head home

Organizers say they will continue the movement at home, where they will continue to pressure their local lawmakers. 

Update: Neil has more, including an on-the scene-in-D.C. report from Houston city council candidate Amy Price.

Speaking of 'home':

In solidarity with Occupy Oakland, Occupy San Diego, Occupy LA, Occupy Portland, Occupy Tacoma, Occupy Seattle and other movements along the west coast of the United States that will shut down ports in their cities on December 12, the General Assembly of Dallas hereby declares:

On December 12, 2011, Occupy Dallas will assemble in Houston, TX.

The following message is from Occupy Oakland:

“On December 12, the occupy movements in different cities will stage mass mobilizations to march on the ports, create community pickets, and effectively shutdown the hubs of commerce, in the same fashion that Occupy Oakland shut down the Port of Oakland on November 2nd, the day of our general strike. The Oakland Port Shutdown was a historic and effective action, and the memory of that night on the port lives in the hearts of people across Oakland and around the country.”

In Houston, we will mobilize and stage a mass march by integrating Occupy Houston, Occupy Austin, Occupy San Marcos, Occupy San Antonio, Occupy Now and Occupy Texas.

We have made attempts at local demonstrations in an effort to spread awareness of the economic injustices affecting the 99%. These peaceful assemblies have been organized with the aim of petitioning our government for a redress of our grievances. On a national level, the response to our protest has often included excessive force and unnecessary violence perpetrated by police departments, with thousands of citizens unlawfully arrested.

Occupy Dallas would like to urge other movements in Texas and the surrounding states that wish to participate in the Occupy the Gulf Coast action to join with Occupy Houston before December 12.

Developing ...

Kristi Thibaut and Jolanda Jones for Houston City Council

A solid 14,000 Houstonians have voted early in person or by mail in the December 10 runoff election for Houston city council. My post isn't likely to move any molehills, much less mountains, with respect to turnout or endorsement influence. Here it is anyway.

Kristi Thibaut, At Large #2: Let's begin by pointing out that Thibaut's opponent, Pastor Andrew Burks, is not only following the Gene Locke "Republicans plus African Americans" electoral strategy but also has a few other, shall we say, non-traditional items in his background, including a second arrest for DWI in 2010. From the Chron's take on the race last week:

Andrew Burks Jr. is harder to pin down. He's a lifelong black Democrat who ran once for chairman of the county party, yet he scored an A on the Texas Conservative Review's questionnaire and had the publication's endorsement for the general election when there were 10 candidates in the running.

Burks is endorsed by the (Harris) county Republican Party. Despite a claim on his Web site that he is endorsed by a former At-Large 5 candidate Laurie Robinson, she said she has not endorsed him.

[...]

Burks said he cannot remember how many times he has run for office. Chronicle research indicates this is his 12th run for public office and his seventh for a council seat. He also has run for state representative, Congress, county school board and party chairman. Two years ago, he took incumbent Sue Lovell to a runoff. Lovell, who is term-limited, endorses Thibaut.

[...]

Burks was under house arrest for 40 days last year following his second DWI conviction. Burks said he had not been drinking nor driving, but that he had been prescribed improper medication at a Veterans Affairs facility, where he was in a parked car at the time of his arrest.

Charles expands:

As a point of comparison, here’s the 2009 runoff overview story. The reason Burks has been endorsed by the GOP despite his “lifelong Democrat” status is likely because he welcomed the endorsement of Steven Hotze in the 2009 runoff. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Andrew Burks, but that one would be sufficient for me. Beyond that, I just don’t know what to make of the guy. Like Griff, the impression I get is of a guy who’s running to run, not because he has some idea of what he wants to do if he wins. His finance reports are a mess, and he says ridiculous things – in that 2009 story, he talks about a “conspiracy of silence” that he can’t articulate. None of this is to say that he can’t win – he can, and he might. I just don’t know what we’ll get if he does.

The reason Burks might win is that he's black, and because another African American, Jolanda Jones, is also in an At Large runoff. Burks and Jones are as far apart philosophically as Jones and her runoff opponent Jack Christie, but for some voters, sadly, that won't matter. Also driving African American voters to the polls on December 10 is a runoff in District B between Alvin Byrd and Jerry Davis, and Republicans are getting boosted by District A's runoff between far-right incumbent Brenda Stardig and her farthest-right challenger Helena Brown.

Neil has more on Burks' bald-faced duplicity.

It's embarrassing that Burks even made it into the runoff with so many other qualified candidates, including a more qualified African American woman, Roz Shorter. It will be even more embarrassing if he wins.

Thibaut, by contrast, is honest, hard-working, and progressive. She was my co-endorsement last month out of ten challengers for the seat. She deserves to be elected. Burks does not. Simple as that.

Jolanda Jones, At Large #5: Again, a simple choice made even easier by Christie's smear mailer, which arrived in my mailbox on the day after Thanksgiving and even quoted Texas Liberal's Neil Aquino from the post in which he endorsed Jones. Hard to twist someone's words any tighter than that. That's the Republican way, though.

My fear is that the fate of Jones and Thibaut are somewhat linked. Either Democrats and progressives will get themselves to the poll to vote for them, or they'll get overcome by guaranteed GOP turnout. As for Thibaut, there's a double negative: there won't be many tickets split Thibaut/Christie, but likely to be many that go Burks/Jones.

As in the general election, I can offer no endorsement in District B, and because the only Democrat running in District A did not make that runoff, I can easily decline choosing between Stardig and Brown ... unlike Mayor Parker.

Update: Bob Ryan, the sensible Republican who ran in AL#5 against Christie and Jones, endorses the councilwoman for re-election.

“While I may not agree with all of Councilmember Jones’ positions, she is one of the few at City Hall that will stand up for the downtrodden, even when it’s one against fourteen.”

Ryan and Chris Bell trump the hell out of Bill White and Peter Brown IMO.