Justice Kennedy is not a smart man:

In the Supreme Court hearing on the Texas redistricting case, we learn: (PBS News Hour)

Mr. Smith [opponent of the Texas action] had argued that mid-decade redistricting for partisan purposes only also created constitutional problems. And Justice Kennedy said: Well, if you take away this flexibility from them, you may be removing an important incentive for them to draw fair districts, because you no longer have the hammer that there can be a mid-decade correction.

In order for an incentive to work, there have to be enforceable rewards and punishments. But there are none in the Texas case, or others like them. If, say, the redistricting was done 'fairly' in 2000, that wouldn't have stopped Tom DeLay's effort for a more advantageous configuration in 2003/4.

In fact, the only place where incentives for fairness can be enforced, is with the Supreme Court*. A notion that Justice Kennedy is too dim to perceive.

[* barring Rococo state constitutions that say majority redistricting can be reversed, but supermajority approval of redistricting requires subsequent supermajorities for mid-decade redistricting.]


posted by Quiddity at 3/01/2006 07:18:00 PM