The American Prospect’s Paul Waldman posted an insightful column on redistricting today. It’s satisfying to see someone else acknowledging that state legislative races are incredibly important this fall.

As Washington wonders whether the shudder-inducing words "Speaker of the House John Boehner" will soon be on lips across the country, the implications of the fall elections for our political geography has gone largely without notice. Elections for control of state legislatures will also be taking place, and though most people know little if anything about who represents them in state capitols, this year it matters a great deal: We just completed a census, and legislatures in most states will be redrawing the boundaries of congressional districts in 2011.

Waldman also explains why and how Democrats are girding for the fight of our political lives.

After the 2000 census, Republicans controlled most of the country's state legislatures and used them mercilessly. For instance, Republicans in Pennsylvania drew the lines so that they ended up holding 12 of the state's 19 congressional districts, despite the fact that it was (and remains) a Democratic-leaning swing state. The GOP managed similar outcomes in Florida and Ohio. In the time since, however, Democrats have invested heavily in preparing for the next round of redistricting, creating a spate of organizations most Americans have never heard of. There's the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which helps Democrats in states get elected, with an eye toward maintaining as many of those precious majorities as possible; the National Democratic Redistricting Trust, which is preparing to fight legal battles over redistricting; and the Foundation for the Future, which is assembling the data necessary to arm Democratic map-drawers.

Meanwhile, Mother Jones’ Suzy Khimm provides her readers with a helpful reminder that, even though the Department of Justice has closed the book on their investigation of Tom DeLay, he’s certainly not out of the legal woods.

DeLay still faces criminal money laundering and conspiracy charges for funneling money into 2002 state legislative races in Texas. The criminal case is up for a hearing next week.

The scheme was part of DeLay's 2003 effort to redraw the state's Congressional map to favor Republicans, as state legislators must approve redistricting changes. As the AP reminds us, DeLay and his two co-defendants are accused of funneling $190,000 in corporate money through the Republican National Committee, then back to state legislative candidates, in violation of state law. …

Both cases against the man-formerly-known-as-the-Hammer have spent years churning through the system, but the timing of DeLay's Texas case seems particularly apt, as the next round of redistricting will happen nationwide in 2011, to reflect population changes recorded in the 2010 Census.

A lot of Texas Republicans seem to be in trouble these days. We’re surely keeping our eye on them, even as we fight for majorities in legislative chambers all across the country.

Republican state Rep. Joe Driver of Texas just got some news that’s going to “pretty well screw" his week... or month.... or election cycle.

The AP wrapped up some solid investigative reporting this week on Rep. Driver’s billing practices and confronted the Texas Republican with the findings.

The veteran Republican legislator, faced with findings from an investigation by The Associated Press, acknowledged in an interview that for years he has been submitting the same receipts – for luxury hotels, airline tickets, meals, fees and incidentals – to both his campaign and to the Texas House. He has also been collecting thousands of dollars in state mileage reimbursements for travel in vehicles for which his campaign has shelled out more than $100,000 since 2000.

The AP's review of hundreds of pages of state and campaign travel records found that Driver double-billed for at least $17,431.55 in travel expenses, much of it at upscale out-of-state hotels, since 2005. The number could go higher, but House travel records before mid-2005 have already been destroyed. Driver has been in office for 18 years. The double-billing figure does not include the vehicle expenses.

Would you believe that he actually thought it was OK to line his pockets with taxpayer money by billing both his campaign and the state for his travel expenses? Or so he has the temerity to claim:

A conservative on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which oversees how state dollars are spent, Driver said he thought it was OK to bill two entities for the same expenses. He said he routinely pays hotels and airlines with donated political funds and then submits the same expenses to the state, taking the taxpayer money for himself.

"Now you're scaring the heck out of me," Driver told the AP, adding: "It pretty well screws my week."
…
Driver insists he thought the double-billing was perfectly appropriate – until talking about it with the AP.

"Well, it doesn't sound like it is now. If you bring it up that way," he said.

Rep. Driver, known for his diatribes against runaway government spending, will now likely become the subject of an investigation for violations of both civil and criminal law.

Rep. Driver joins fellow Republican state Rep. Linda Harper-Brown in the ethical shadows. In June, Rep. Harper-Brown got caught driving a $55,000 Mercedes Benz owned by an influential highway contractor that does over $12 million in business with the state of Texas.

This fall, “Double-Dip” Driver faces Democrat Jamie Dorris in the November general election. Democrat Loretta Haldenwang is challenging Linda “Harper-Benz.”

Texas residents enjoy one of the most informative and data-laden redistricting websites of any state in America, maintained by the Texas Legislative Council. The site contains detailed descriptions of the redistricting process in Texas; the state and federal requirements for various types of districts; and an interactive “DistrictViewer” capable of comparing actual and proposed maps down to the street level.

But the information we found most interesting was an archive of congressional redistricting plans from Texas statehood until today.

The maps show Texas’ early days as a two-district state (a jarring image for those used to seeing a 32-district congressional powerhouse). There are historical quirks like Texas’ temporary 19th Century claim to Greene County, which spent several years with no House representation at all and later became part of Oklahoma.

The archive also clearly demonstrates the impact of Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), which established the redistricting principle that all congressional districts must be approximately equal in population. As was common in many urbanizing Southern states prior to Wesberry, the archive shows that Texas redistricted only once between 1917 and 1957. And the 1965 redistricting plan was the first in which several urban counties were split into more than one congressional district. (The 1957 plan only divided Harris County in half, whereas 5 counties were divided in 1965.)

And of course, there’s the infamous DeLay-mander of 2003, the maps for which are more commonly available.

All-in-all, this is a wonderful resource for those interested in political history. If combined with county-level election results, it might be interesting to see how some of these districts voted in presidential elections – recent or otherwise.

This week, Congress.org responded to a reader’s question regarding redistricting.

The “nonpartisan news and information Web site” addressed the following inquiry:

"When a state's seats are cut after the census, how do they decide which representative is out of a job?"

Congress.org’s Frances Symes responds (emphases added):

After the census, and after the reapportionment has taken place, deciding how many House seats each state will have, the states step in to draw the district lines.

Because the Supreme Court in the 1960s interpreted the Constitution to require that each U.S. House district have equal numbers of people, any state with more than one district is likely to be required to adjust its district lines after each census to limit the variation in population between congressional districts.

Redistricting plans are drawn up and passed by the state legislatures and approved by the governors. In this way, the party that controls the state legislature essentially controls the redistricting.
…
While many political experts disagree about the importance of redistricting to the outcome of House elections, it is clear that it can be crucial in determining the make up of a state's delegation in the House, and thus the make up of Congress itself.

Certain areas within each state show a long-term preference for one party over the other.

Because these voting habits are well known to political experts in each state it is possible to create a district that is almost certain to favor candidates of one party of another. There are many ways to adjust districts to make them more or less friendly to members of a certain party.

In case you’re wondering about Republicans’ version of “friendly to members of a certain party,” allow me to refer you to the infamous 2003 Texas “DeLay-mander.” Gaining and maintaining majorities in state legislative chambers gives Democrats a seat at the redistricting table, so to speak. This will help prevent the GOP from gerrymandering itself into artificial majorities on both the state and federal levels for the next decade.

Symes goes on to posit the query,

So, what happens to an incumbent whose district disappears?

He or she has to run in a new district (which may or may not include part of his or her old district), possibly against another incumbent.

As redistricting nears, this issue is gaining some urgency. Some states, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, are predicted to lose congressional seats to other, more rapidly-growing states, such as Texas and Georgia. Once the congressional district boundaries are redrawn in the states losing seats in 2011, not all of those members of Congress will have a district to represent or a seat to run for in 2012.

With so much of the national pundit focus on the 2010 congressional elections, few are pausing to consider that some of these districts currently of so much concern to the makeup of the 112th Congress soon will simply cease to exist.

A recent item in Governing magazine addressed the pivotal nature of this fall’s state legislative elections.

This fall's legislative elections -- the last before the start of a new once-every-decade redistricting process -- are unique... According to this author's estimates, more chambers are in play this year than in any cycle since at least 2002.

The piece goes on to discuss some of the challenges both parties are facing, but the more interesting emphasis is on the number of state legislative chambers that could change hands –- with control passing from Democrats to Republicans or vice versa -- this cycle.

But more important than the number of chambers in play is the impact that just a few shifts in control could have on the re-drawing of congressional district lines, and consequently, U.S. House races for the next ten years.

Consider the following.

Thirty-six states give their legislatures control over congressional redistricting (some states employ independent commissions or other measures). These 36 legislatures will draw the maps for (most likely, pending final Census results) 383 of the 435 congressional seats.

Democrats currently hold legislative majorities in 43 state House, Senate, or Assembly chambers with the authority to control congressional redistricting.

Democrats currently hold majorities in both legislative chambers in states that will (again, pending final Census results) draw maps for 200 congressional seats.

Democrats currently hold majorities in one of the two chambers that will draw maps for an additional 78 congressional seats.

Of the legislatures that will draw congressional district maps this year, 23 chambers in 17 states are within 5 seats of majority control flipping from one party to the other. These 17 state legislatures will draw 198 congressional districts.

If any doubts exist as to the relevance of this fall’s legislative elections, these numbers should dispel them handily and without equivocation. These state-level elections will influence the makeup of hundreds of congressional districts for the next ten years, and majorities in these key legislative chambers could be decided by only a handful of ballots in a handful of districts. (Case in point: Texas Republican State Rep. Linda Harper-Brown maintained majority control for the House Republicans in 2008 by winning a recount by 19 votes.)

This summer, the hot pundit talk is about whether or not Democrats will maintain control of the U.S. House after this fall’s elections.

But the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee is bringing the real heat this cycle. The DLCC has labored tirelessly since the harsh redistricting of 2001 and has made solid gains in statehouses across the country. But we are by no means secure as we face the 2011 redistricting. Losing only a few key state legislative elections in November can cause Democrats to lose their seats at various redistricting tables next year. We never forget that as we work to support and build infrastructure for local campaigns around the country.

Welcome to the hottest game in town.

Back in May, a diarist at SwingStateProject revisited Tom DeLay’s infamous mid-decade gerrymandering of Texas. Using Dave’s Redistricting App (an excellent “do it yourself” redistricting tool that didn’t exist publically in 2001) to produce maps, demographic data, and presidential election results in each district, the diarist produced an excellent study of what might have happened without DeLay’s hijinks.

The diarist makes a different argument than we would, but what most have forgotten (and what the data strikingly reveals) is how many of the long-time Democratic members of congress targeted by DeLay and the Republicans came from staunchly Republican districts even before the 2003 gerrymander. Targeted Democrats in the 17th, 11th, 4th, 2nd, and 1st districts all represented constituents who gave either George Bush or John McCain (or both) at least two-thirds of the vote.

All of these Democrats won elections in 2002, and some of them won nearly 60% of the vote themselves in that year, which was certainly not a strong one for Democrats. It stands to reason that many of the Texas Democrats who lost in 2004 did so not because they found themselves in more conservative districts, but because so many voters in their new districts were unfamiliar. These news voters had never seen the incumbent congressperson on a ballot and (if they lived in an unfamiliar media market) may never have seen the incumbent’s campaign ads in previous years.

So the threat of Republican gerrymandering goes beyond the risk of Democratic incumbents being drawn into more conservative districts. It’s also easy to target Democrats who already represent tough districts – particularly in states where Democrats have gained recently despite an already GOP-friendly map.

If we can prevent the GOP from having complete control over redistricting in key states, they won’t be able to target Democrats with the impunity they showed in Texas.

And that’s just one more reason why this election is the most important we’ll see for the next ten years.

The far-right Republican platform-writers are at it again, this time in Montana, where the recently-adopted GOP platform fully embraces the idea of government officials policing people’s bedrooms:

(…)the Montana Republican Party has adopted a platform that would criminalize “homosexual acts”:

Homosexual Acts

We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.

Ironically, the platform uses some form of the word “constitutional” at least 10 times and even argues that constitutionality should be decided by the states. But the Montana Supreme Court struck down the State’s sodomy law in 1997 and ruled that it violated the constitutional right to privacy. [H/T Think Progress]

The Montana Supreme Court, of course, was about six years ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared state anti-sodomy statutes unconstitutional in 2003. In the facts surrounding that case, Lawrence v. Texas, a sheriff’s deputy had burst into the apartment of one of the petitioners and arrested them both under Texas’ anti-sodomy laws. It was literally a case of the government policing people’s bedrooms.

And speaking of Texas, the GOP platform there also seeks to turn back the clock and return to a pre-Lawrence authoritarian utopia:

The 2010 GOP platform in Texas supports laws that criminalize sodomy and suggests that straight people who support same-sex marriage should be penalized with jail time. The GOP platform was quoted as openly stating:

“We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy,” the GOP platform reads. Meaning that even though the U.S. Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws last decade (ironically in a case that stemmed from Texas), Texas Republicans would like the state to have the power to criminalize LGBT folks for having sex.

Thankfully, this is one idea where Republicans are clearly swimming against the tide of equal rights.

Republican state legislators in Texas were busy last week.

State Rep. Todd Smith pushed legislation that would suppress voting.

State Rep. Linda Harper-Brown found herself under an ethics cloud for accepting gifts in an apparent conflict of interest with her position on the House Transportation Committee.

And State Rep. Wayne Christian was assembling a new platform for the Texas GOP.

The Texas Republican Party held their annual convention last week, and Rep. Christian chaired the Platform Committee, which came up with a 25-page manifesto proclaiming the state party’s allegiance to “freedom and opportunity,” among other things.

Some select items from the 2010 Texas Republican Party Platform (all emphases are added):

We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.

We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

We support an immediate and orderly transition to a system of private pensions based on the concept of individual retirement accounts, and gradually phasing out the Social Security tax.

We urge the Congress to defund, repeal, and reject the national healthcare takeover, also known as “ObamaCare” or any similar legislation.

Education falls under the 10th Amendment to our United States Constitution. Given this, the Department of Education (DOE) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) have no jurisdiction and must be repealed.

We pledge our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and toward dispelling the myth of separation of church and state.

We deplore all discrimination. We also deplore forced sensitivity training and urge repeal of any mandate requiring it. We urge immediate repeal of the Hate Crimes Law.

We call on the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of these United States to clarify Section 1 of the 14th amendment to limit citizenship by birth to those born to a citizen of the United States: with no exceptions.

We call Congress and the President to use their constitutional powers to restrain activist judges. We urge Congress to adopt the Judicial Conduct Act of 2005 and remove judges who abuse their authority. Further, we urge Congress to withhold Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights.

And these are only a few of the gems of the Texas GOP platform.

One plank in particular has a special significance in Texas statehouse elections this fall. Basically, it’s an enforcement clause that reads, in part:

The Republican State Chairman and county chairs are responsible for implementing this platform by requiring party candidates to indicate their positions on platform planks before their acceptance on the ticket … We support the withholding of campaign contributions to organizations or campaigns … who do not support the principles of the 2010 Texas State Republican Party Platform.

So all Republicans for whom Texans vote this November support privatizing Social Security, depriving the Supreme Court of much of its jurisdiction, repealing hate crimes legislation, generally altering the U.S. Constitution to suit their fancy… and that’s just for starters.

State Rep. Linda Harper-Brown is going to have a tough time with the conflict of interest plank.

[h/t Political Correction]

Texas Republican State Rep. Linda Harper-Brown drives a very nice car.

But she doesn’t own the 2010 Mercedes Benz sedan (valued at about $55,000) she drives. The car was actually purchased by a highway contractor that does millions of dollars of business with the state every year. Durable Enterprises Equipment, a company owned by Jeffrey Bryan, owns the Mercedes. In fact, Rep. Harper-Brown has driven cars owned by Durable Enterprises Equipment since her election to the state House in 2002.

In addition to Durable Enterprises Equipment, Jeffrey Bryan owns Durable Specialties and Paradigm Traffic Systems. According to the Texas comptroller’s office, these companies have done $12 million in work (such as installing and managing highway cameras) for the Texas Department of Transportation over the last three years.

Republican Rep. Harper-Brown sits on the House Transportation Committee. According to Dallas/Fort Worth’s WFAA:

After she amended the law in 2003 to allow cities to put in red-light cameras, Paradigm got into that business, too, although it says with little success.

Neither Bryan nor Harper-Brown would comment to WFAA about the car arrangement or their relationship regarding legislation.

Rep. Harper-Brown’s husband, William Brown, seemed pleased to comment on the matter.

Brown told WFAA by phone that Durable has been his accounting client since the 1980s, from which he arranged to accept vehicles as compensation instead of cash.

“I choose to allow my wife to drive one of the cars that's mine, just like I buy her supper,” Brown said.

Brown claims he pays taxes on the cars, but refused to turn over any records as proof.

Rep. Harper-Brown’s accountant husband further insists:

“She does not control any part of my business," he said. "It's my business; it's my income.”

But Rep. Harper-Brown clearly didn’t always feel that the fact that Durable was her husband’s client absolved her of any conflict-of-interest issues.

Prior to her election to the Texas House, Harper-Brown sat on the Irving city council. During her five years in that post, she abstained from votes on Paradigm bids, citing a conflict of interest.

Funny how that conflict seemed to disappear when this Republican was elected to higher office and appointed to the influential House Transportation Committee.

And not only did that conflict disappear, but she also suddenly decided that driving cars owned by that same contractor was ethically acceptable.

Rep. Harper-Brown is hoping to be elected to her fifth term in the Texas House this fall. What vehicle do you suppose she drives to her campaign events?

Despite the many crucial concerns facing Texans, Texas House Republicans are indicating that addressing supposed “voter fraud” could be as important to them in the 2011 legislative session as addressing issues like a multi-billion-dollar budget shortfall, unemployment, and immigration, just to name a few.

Republican State Rep. Todd Smith, Chair of the House Elections Committee, met yesterday to hear testimony on whether any new evidence could be found to support a requirement that Texas voters present a photo ID before casting a ballot.

Such legislation, which is opposed by many Democrats, failed in Texas’ last legislative session:

The issue nearly derailed the 81st session after House Democrats “chubbed” — a tactic in which members engage in pointless banter over minor bills — to prevent a vote on the voter ID bill. They argue voter ID would only disenfranchise students, the elderly and minorities.

(Republican antics in that fight are another story altogether.)

In addition to potential voter disenfranchisement, a key issue with voter ID legislation is whether voter fraud is a real problem.

Consider the following statistics.

Since 2002, more than 20 million ballots have been cast in November general elections in Texas.

Since 2002, 267 requests to investigate voter fraud have been referred to the Texas Attorney General’s office.

That’s less than 0.0014 percent (rounding up) of all votes cast.

Of those 267 requests to investigate voter fraud, only 35 warranted investigation that resulted in prosecution.

That’s 13 percent of that 0.0014 percent… Which is 0.0002 percent of all votes cast in November general elections over the past eight years.

Whether you prefer the hard numbers or the itty-bitty percentages, the point is, voter fraud in Texas doesn’t seem to be a serious problem.

And in the face of massive budget shortfalls and high unemployment, it certainly doesn’t seem to be an issue that deserves the time and resources of the Texas legislature.