Friday, May 20, 2011

NAACP files Motions to Amend Judgment in redistricting case

Little bit of a Friday surprise here. NAACP has filed two motions to amend the judgment in the redistricting case.

Motion to Amend Judgment

Second Motion to Amend Judgment

I haven't had a chance to read through both, but I assume that the Second Motion is an amended version of the Motion to Amend Judgment. ECF is tricky that way.

What does this mean? Well, it's sort of like Rep. Tommy Reynolds asking for a special redistricting session yesterday: when you're up late in the game, you can swing away. The only downside here would be for the three judge panel to completely reverse course and start drawing new districts, something that is exceedingly unlikely. Given that it appears it's the current lines or the Joint Committee proposal, I guess they figure there's no harm in taking a swing for the fence.

5 comments:

Derek said...

Seriously?

"Well, it's sort of like Rep. Tommy Reynolds asking for a special redistricting session yesterday: when you're up late in the game, you can swing away."

Who do you think you are fooling? Your side is against the ropes and you know it.

someoneinnorthms said...

You are beginning to sound silly. One also swings for the fences when one is behind by a large margin. That's where the Democrats are right now. They are desperate to save their Speaker or even the wilting notion of any Democrat speaker.

Cottonmouth said...

OK, y'all, why don't you tell me how running again in districts that have twice produced Democratic margins in the House is a good thing for Republicans? Bear in mind that in both of those years, 2003 and 2007, the heralded Haley Barbour was at the top of the GOP ticket. This year it looks like Phil Bryant will be the GOP nominee for Governor. Either one of you care to opine how Bryant's coattails will somehow be longer than Barbour's?

Frederick said...

Matt - only a few days ago you were 'wondering' how long it would take for Barbour/MSGOP to challenge this three judge ruling. In your misguided thoughts then - which are no different than your misguided thoughts above - you spun yourself such a web that now I wonder how you can ever get out. It sure looks like its your Dem buddies that are asking the court to change its opinion, not the Repubs.

As to your great political consultation about the districts and who has won them in the past, seems to me that you are totally ignoring the vulnerable Dems in Conservative districts that have chosen not to run again. Without incumbents in these districts, how can you with a straight face make the argument that the current lines benefit the Dems and McCoy?

Dream on - everyone needs a good dream every now and then. Problem is, tomorrow comes and you have to wake up.

Cottonmouth said...

Frederick -

1) I'm still waiting on your email so that we can determine the parameters of our bet.

2) "only a few days ago you were 'wondering' how long it would take for Barbour/MSGOP to challenge this three judge ruling." You mean this post? http://cottonmouthblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/so-is-it-really-over-or-will-there-be.html You continue to read things that aren't there.

3) Who are these vulnerable Democrats? Bear in mind that the filing deadline has not passed, and that there are Republicans who now represent unfavorable districts.