Partisan Politics in Steve Bickerstaffs Lines in the Sand - Essay Example

?Of 2003 Texas Redistricting: Partisan Politics in Steve Bickerstaff’s Lines in the Sand Currently a law Steve Bickerstaff narrates the story concerning the Texas redistricting that transpired in 2003. Evidently, Bickerstaff is the point-of-view of the book. To my mind, Bickerstaff is the right person for the job in narrating the narrative involving the controversial Texas redistricting. Besides his technical expertise and thorough research, Bickerstaff’s honesty and integrity clearly show his competence to the subject matter. Of course, all history books such as Bickerstaff’s Lines in the Sand are subjective, one way or the other. Even Bickerstaff openly admits that his book is not objective. He notes that by way of selecting which stories are to be included or excluded in his narrative substantially implies that his book is “to some extent subjective” (Bickerstaff ix). The inclusion and exclusion or the presence and absence of certain storyline make the storytelling quite personal; personal in the sense that it leads the writer to choose among the many scenes or events that appear connected or relevant to his objective or main outline. Despite the subjectivity of his book, Bickerstaff argues that he writes it, to some degree, in an “accurate and dispassionate” manner. Moreover, Bickerstaff states that he has attempted to write the book without taking a partisan side to the two contending parties, saying that he has no intention to “demonize or lionize anyone” (ix). Congressman Tom DeLay is the central character of Bickerstaff’s book. In Bickerstaff’s narration, it appears that Mr. DeLay has played an important role in the realization of Texas redistricting. The organization called Texans for a Republican Majority or TRMPAC was organized mainly by Mr. DeLay; and TRMPAC has become a major force in financially supporting would-be Republican representatives in the Texas House. Mr. DeLay’s TRMPAC primarily aims to achieve a political majority in the legislative body of the State of Texas. In Mr. DeLay’s mind-set, TRMPAC will be successful in its objective if it also supports and pursues a plan in redistricting Texas. In doing so, the political majority by the Republican Party will not be far from possible in attaining such ambition or vision. Back in 2001, however, Mr. DeLay favored a kind of redistricting that is drawn on the “basis of neutral factors, consisted of compact districts, and preserved communities of interest” (Bickerstaff 287, emphasis mine). Such kind of redistricting is far from partisan in character; the neutrality of this redistricting design makes it possible for the American people, especially the voters, to choose whomever they like. In general, the outcome of the election depends largely on the voting public rather than the political party itself. Bickerstaff argues that Cong. DeLay chose for this redistricting project because of the situation that was more favorable to the Democrats: the Democratic Party was the political majority while the Republican Party was the political minority. There are three fundamental reasons for pursuing redistricting in the Texas House, at least in the eyes of Cong. DeLay. First, since Mr. George W. Bush, who belonged to the Republican Party, overwhelmingly won in the Presidential race in the State of Texas, it is rational that its representatives in Congress “should do the same” (qtd. in Bickerstaff 85). However, the representatives from the Democratic Party, who dominated the congressional delegation at that time, failed to buy that fallacious argument. Second, redistricting in the State of Texas is an act of “political fairness” (qtd. in Bickerstaff 85). Mr. DeLay argues that the reason why Republican representatives garnered only a smaller number of seats in the Texas House, despite its greater percentage of vote from Texans, is because of the “way the lines are drawn” (Bickerstaff 86). What Mr. DeLay refers to “lines [that] are drawn” is the1991 district lines prominent in Texas. And third, the underlying rationale why Democrats almost always win in the State of Texas is because of the “court-adopted plan” (Bickerstaff 86). Mr. DeLay states that Democrats seek help from Texas district judges whenever their political majority is threatened; these judges are appointed by the Democrats. Thus, redistricting is necessary since it is the duty of the legislature. On the other hand of the scale, almost all newspapers in the United States, particularly in the State of Texas, wrote in the negative stance pertaining to the reopening of congressional redistricting. Some editors even said that redistricting is a “terrible idea” (Bickerstaff 122). In late 2002, a democrat asked Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, a Republican, if the Senate will consider redistricting; Said governor replied by saying that it will not take up redistricting because of the controversy surrounding such proposal. Meanwhile, in DeLay’s Washington office, the Republican members of the congressional delegation convened informally and decided unanimously to redraw the congressional districts (Bickerstaff 123); their main purpose was to defeat the Anglo Democratic incumbents. In January of 2003, Mr. DeLay went to Austin, Texas, to speak to Speaker Craddick, Governor Perry, and Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst -- all are Republicans -- about the plan of redistricting. Bickerstaff notes that Mr. DeLay, upon leaving Austin, felt an assurance that the state leaders (i.e., Republicans) “would push congressional redistricting” (Bickerstaff 123). They have already set a venue and date for pushing this redrawing of congressional districts: legislature in 2003. Jim Ellis, the director of DeLay’s Americans for a Republican Majority, worked out the map for the redistricting. In closed door meeting at the Washington office, Ellis showed the map to the Republican members of the Texas delegation for consultation. At first, several Republican representatives disagreed to the initial map made by Ellis. It was then revised with the objective of arriving at a “final” plan that would unseat few targeted Democratic members of the Texas congressional delegation “without jeopardizing Republican incumbents” (Bickerstaff 125). According to Bickerstaff, when State Rep. Jim Dunnam became the Speaker of the Texas House, it was the first time in one-hundred-thirty years that the Speaker of the said House was a Republican (Bickerstaff 133). Unfortunately for Mr. Dunnam, he seemed to be in deep quandary concerning the project of redrawing the congressional districts in the State of Texas. In 2003, the Democratic House members saw the inevitability of Texas redistricting. At those times, the Democratic members of the congressional delegation were the political minority, while the Republican House members were the political majority. The caucus leader of the Democratic Party in Texas State asked his fellow party members if the idea of a walkout, as a way of stopping the redistricting bill, is not a good idea. The Democratic House members considered that thought; and they did. At the end, however, the Democrats failed to kill the bill. The redrawing of congressional districts was pushed through via Senate legislature; and in the process, the Republicans gained several seats in the Texas House. By and large, Bickerstaff’s Lines in the Sand is a history book about the 2003 Texas redistricting. Bickerstaff reviewed the papers and documents associated to that event, which he generally labeled as a tragic event; tragedy because the plan of and action for redistricting jeopardized the integrity of the individual members of the Texas House and even other national leaders who participated in such scheme. Redistricting became the battle of two political parties in the U.S. Congress. Bickerstaff agrees to the observation of several political commentators that the Texas House should have focused more on deeply relevant issues such as public health and education. As a historian who attempts for accuracy and fairness, Bickerstaff does not say that the Democrats could not do the way the Republicans did concerning the redrawing of congressional districts; he seems to say that every American individual, whatever political or ideological leanings he or she has, must get a lesson from the tragic event of the 2003 Texas redistricting. Work Cited Bickerstaff, Steve. Lines in the Sand: Congressional Redistricting in Texas and the Downfall of Tom Delay. Austin: TX: U of Texas P, 2007. Print. Read More