Jackson Jambalaya

"This was a huge smackdown of Andy Taggart, Terry Burton, Phil Bryant,the Governor, and the crack legal team of Wallace & Seale"

Smackdown OF or smackdown FOR?

Delbert wins because Delbert was right. This time at least. He argued for following the law and the Judges agreed. Can't believe Cottonmouth trying to claim this as a win for the Dems because it is exactly opposite of what they were fighting for, betting on, and wanting to see happen. As to the Governor/Phil/GOP its a loss, but not a big one because it does give the result of not employing the Reynolds/McCoy plan. They argued for the judges to draw a plan - and while they didn't get that the status quo was their secondary choice.

Burton (along with his Hospital Assn paid lawyer Taggert) lost big. Just as did the other Dems. Assume he won't be in charge of the redistricting process in 2012.

I would say just Wallace, an experience election law and constitutional law lawyer. Seale was teats on a boarhog.

Status quo prevails for the most part...Rita Martinson remains a House Seat not a Senate contender.
The hats in the ring for Senate will shake, rattle and roll, with some pulling out and more going in.
A dozen business days left to file..who else will run against Rita? Who else will jump in Senate race? And who will the "Madison Mafia" support?

"Smackdown OF" is correct. The GOP argued existing lines were unconstitutional. Were they not the ones taking this to federal court in the first place?

Dems did lose too, but they are less hurt by the status quo than the GOP is. It's not like they were expecting to win the Senate.

... My bad, I forgot the NAACP filed the suit. I plead "it's Monday."

I know many if not most of the Republican players involved in this case. Andy Taggart, Mike Wallace and the Governor are very smart men who wanted a specific outcome. Delbert is just as smart as those guys, and merely wanted to follow the law.

Phil is just along for the ride. He can't hold the jockstrap for any of the 4 above. Yet, he is still better than anything the Dems have to offer

Two attorneys from Brunini started this ball rolling.

What about one man one vote rule??

The real winner here were the people, the state constitution and the MS TEA PARTY.

The court essentially adopted the theory and language of their fried of the court brief as researched and drafter by Russ Latino and Richard Wilbourn.

See the brief here and read their arguments at:

http://api.ning.com/files/b2fCCqmJhBmSbo-oU2W*wP4ChfVN-WQSe-f*rcOL66*WYmjJ4a2h6Rojwg21-d5KTBZVKJ7bv7pwqxezQbIvxWRJLQO0adyC/RedistrictingMotionforLeaveACBriefDeclaration2.pdf

You are wrong Anderson about the status quo hurting the GOP more than the Dems. The existing lines will lead to net GOP gains in the House. Just watch.

When it comes to politics the Cottonberger is about as reliable a source as Donna Ladd.

What about one man one vote rule??

What about it?

I'm proud of Delbert. Give that man a raise!

3:46 - The 'one man, one vote' rule still applies. The USSC in adopting the rule stated that a state must have a plan in place for redistricting and that it should 'at a minimum' redistrict every ten years. MS, as noted by the 3 judge panel, last redistricted in 2002. They adopted a plan (section 245 of the MS constitution) that said they would redistrict every ten years beginning in 1982. The judges properly ruled that redistricting by 2012 would be in line with the MS Constitution and that the provisions of the MS Constitution fit within the 'one man, one vote' rule. So the judges ruled that MS should follow the MS Constitution and the NAACP and the Dems will just have to live with it. (It should be noted that Section 245 of the Constitution was passed when the Dems were over 90% of the MS House and the MS Senate.)

"Just watch."

We'll find out soon!

... In other news, I just realized I went to high school with a candidate for Madison County sheriff. Knew those signs sounded familiar ....

What about one man one vote rule??

If you read the order.... or just the executive summary of the order you will see reference to the Russell case. Basically, once every ten years is good enough for the courts. Districts are malaportioned the day they are drawn. Section 254 calls for redistricting every 10 yrs beginning with the year after the census data is available.

Can we get Delbert to be the state auditor too? At least he doesn't shy away from a fight.

Bill Denny is not a happy camper...his race just got a little more competitive with the use of existing districts

If Carson wanted to win he should have run as a Republican. Thanks for carrying his water but H64 won't be electing a Donkeycrat despite Carson's efforts to hide his party affiliation.

Tim Saler, pack your yankee bags, learn who it is exactly you work for.

Thanks for carrying his water but H64 won't be electing a Donkeycrat despite Carson's efforts to hide his party affiliation.

You nailed it. It is already obvious to many that Dorsey plans to avoid, if possible, any mention of the team he signed up to play for. Won't work.

2:40, who's the Madison Mafia?

I think Secretary Hosemann was spot on in his argument, but it was Russ Latino's brief that carried the day on this. The judges had Delbert's arguments when they issued their "inclination" order, but Russ put another slant on it that got through to them. Thanks, Russ...it may be a long time before anyone has such a quiet impact on the future of our state. Bill Billingsley

Hopefully a strong GOP candidate will emerge from Clinton to send Blount packing.

Bill, 2:40 must not live in Madison. He/She would know there is no one specific mafia. There are just multiple groups all with their own interests.

I remember the reservoir mafia as deemed by Kirk Fordyce, are they related?

Despite his missteps along the way some credit should be afforded to Phil Bryant. He stopped the McCoy-Reynolds plan and withstood the backstabbing leaks to the media by Burton. It wasn't elegant nor always well thought out but he did put enough obstacles in the way that led to the eventual derailment of the House plan.

You're right about Phil Bryant deserving a lot of credit for starting this chain of events and seeing it trhough to the end. He took a huge political risk for conservativism, and won.

"Phil Bryant deserving a lot of credit for starting this chain of events ......" are you kidding me? Thank goodness Delbert handled this mess. If Phil had followed the law, hell, if Phil knew the law, none of the nonsense would have happened. Credit? Phil deserves credit? My goodness, is credit what Phil cares about? Golly, I hope you're a campaign hack of Phil's. We are all doomed with his election.

Delbert handled the mess? Delbert's attorneys were sucking big wind and Donkeycrat dicks until the Tea Party Amicus Brief arrived to save the day. Yes, give Delbert credit for holding the line until the big guns arrived for the decisive battle. But the credit is no way solely his.

Phil is a joke and really showed his true colors during redistricting. Accusing a judge of earwigging? Really? Do y'all really want this guy representing our state? I wish that same judge could permanent place gag order on old Phil.

Phil Bryant doesn't take " a huge political risk" for anything or anybody.

I just don't know how he continues to fool so many people. Doesn't anyone recognize his canned remarks when he makes a speech?

His speeches are a string of catch phrases that have already " played".