Surprise surprise! The Chronicle has weighed in on the Supreme Court ruling on Texas’ redistricting plan, and they don’t seem to like it much at all:

Frequent redrawing of district lines makes voters unfamiliar with their representatives and their challengers. Districts drawn to maximize the chances of one party over the other tend to lack geographic coherency. To entrench a sitting majority or to gain one, communities and common interests are split. When bipartisan electorates lose the chance to re-elect popular incumbents of the minority party, the public interest and the seniority of the state’s delegation suffer.

This isn’t just wrong; it’s stupid. First of all, the districts drawn prior to DeLay’s redistricting plan were “drawn to maximize the chances of one party” — the Democratic Party. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was the swing vote in this case, noted this fact in his opinion. If it weren’t for the Democratic gerrymander of 1992, this case probably wouldn’t have come out as it did.

Secondly, “bipartisan electorates” did not “lose the chance to re-elect popular incumbents of the minority party.” The electorates were not, first of all, bi-partisan, being the result of a Democratic gerrymander. And in any event, electorates surely could have re-elected incumbents if they wanted to. The electorate had simply shifted to better reflect the demographics of the state, and if that flipped out some incumbents, that’s too bad for those incumbents. However, it’s good for democracy.

While some members of the Texas congressional delegation believe this state is free of ethnic discrimination, the high court found that the Legislature’s redrawing of District 23 in 2003 violated the rights of Hispanic voters. The court, dominated by conservative Republicans, recognized 7-2 that discrimination against Hispanic voters is not a thing of the distant past.

“[D]ominated by conservative Republicans?” The court is split with four liberals, four conservatives, and one left-leaning moderate, Anthony Kennedy. That’s hardly domination.

Furthermore, the plan didn’t “discriminate” against Hispanic voters. It discriminated against Democratic voters who happened to be Hispanic, thereby diluting Hispanic voting power. While forbidden under the Voting Rights Act, this is hardly the racist coup the Chronicle makes it out to be.

The cost of victory weighs most heavily on the person who was the driving force behind Texas’ redistricting. To force the issue, former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay needed a Republican majority in the Texas House. His efforts to achieve that end led to his indictment. The indictment cost DeLay the post of U.S. House majority leader, which had made him the third most powerful official in Washington. DeLay, facing defeat at the polls, resigned his House seat in June.

Yes, I’m sure the Chronicle weeps for Tom DeLay.

In any event, the link between the redistricting battle and DeLay’s woes is extremely tenuous. Throwing this out in the editorial was plainly bad judgment. By this logic, anything DeLay did to help secure a Republican majority was inexorably linked to redistricting. And besides, I think anyone with half a brain recognizes that Travis County D.A. Ronnie Earle is on a mindless crusade to get DeLay on trumped up charges, as evinced by the fact the Democratic Party has also committed the acts DeLay is accused of, yet remains unprosecuted.

If Wednesday’s court decision was a victory for Texas, another such victory, and we are undone.

Whine on, Chron. Whine on.