That was the first time the court had intervened in dedistricting, so it wasn't a tradition. Also, they couldn't agree because of the split in the senate. The courts did it wrong and although I'm not sure the redistricting done was equally representative (i'd have to look at the maps to answer that) at the very least they were more truly representative.

Sorry, didn't mean to say the court intervention was tradition. I meant that once the districts are set, you leave them alone until the next census. There wasn't a sense of "we'll draw these temporary districts now, and come back and do them right, legislatively, in a couple of years."

You can argue that the Democrats won with the court-drawn districts, but that was the process that was used. The Republicans coming back and redrawing them isn't merely fixing a technical error or anything; it was a power grab that ignored the rule of only drawing districts once every 10 years.

actually I don't every 10 years was a rule, I think that was a tradition. But when it was done incorrectly the first time I can see why you'd break with tradition.

Sure, especially if you lost the first time around....

Seems to me that "incorrect" is in the eye of the beholder.

you'd have a tough time arguing that Texas is a democrat state. Not with 60% of the voters being Republican.

No dispute there. But they went outside the process to address that.

Besides, the process of drawing district lines has very little to do with what voters actually want. The Republicans, especially, have spent years systematically redrawing districts to create safe Republican districts and new minority-dominated districts. By shoveling all the minorities into a few districts, you elect more minority representatives -- but you also cut down on the number of Democrats overall. The actual political breakdown of the populace is not a consideration.

To sort of turn the question around: The voters of Massachusetts elected a Democratic senator. Why should the governor be allowed to appoint a Republican? Isn't that thwarting the voters' will?

I don't think so: I think you have rules and traditions so people know what to expect, ideology aside. But why is that point valid in Mass. but not Texas?