When liberal partisans cannot win at the ballot box or in the court of public opinion, they push their agenda through the courts. Litigious-liberals are delaying elections and disenfranchising voters in a naked attempt to steal elections from the people of Texas.
It’s fair to say the voters of Texas have done some rather serious re-districting on their own. In 2010, voters sent incumbent Obamacrats packing – flipping 23 seats from liberal legislators to conservative campaigners.
But as we see repeated in state after state, year after year, the results of the democratic process are inconvenient to the liberals who occupy the modern Democratic Party. So they sue – often on the most specious of grounds – to undermine the will of the people.
Earlier this week Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott attempted a court-requested comprise with the liberal factions suing the state over redistricting. Despite their high-sounding claims about minority representation, most of the lawsuits come down to Democratic partisans wanting the courts to impose maps on the state guaranteeing the election of more liberal candidates.
Candidates the voters of Texas increasingly reject every time they have the opportunity.
There is no doubt the courts have a legitimate and legal role in reviewing district lines are fairly drawn, that voters are not disenfranchised through gerrymandering. Yet Texas’ experience with redistricting this year demonstrates just how wrongly the courts can be abused in this process.
Venue-shopping liberals take their cases to judges whose partisan reach exceed their judicial grasp. The three-judge federal panel in San Antonio tried to impose a map that could only liberal activists could love. Remember, the US Supreme Court unanimously rejected the map and instructed the San Antonio panel to work more closely from the maps drawn in public by the Legislature.
The legislative-drawn maps sure weren’t perfect, but at least they were drawn by those authorized by our federalist system to do so.
The intractable left isn’t interested in electoral fairness – remember, they oppose efforts to prevent voter fraud – and it is no surprise that they apparently would rather toss the state into electoral crisis than cut their losses and move on.
Frankly, there really can be compromise in this sort of suit. Giving the liberal partisans – who have hijacked the electoral process – anything beyond the narrow reading of current law is to hand them a victory while dealing Texas voters a defeat.
Mr. Abbott did his job, well and ably representing his client, by seeking to provide a compromise with the plaintiffs in an ill-willed lawsuit. He attempted to do what the courts foolishly ordered – to negotiate in good faith with those who have shown no interest in exercising good will.
So for now Texas is still without representational maps and without an election date. The allies of the Democratic Party in Texas have proven themselves to be the opponents of democracy in our democratic republic.