It isn't the best time to be Tom

You think you've got troubles? Try being Tom DeLay these days. First there were the ethics complaints, then those pesky indictments, and now the Supreme Court's going to review the DeLay-led redistricting that allowed Texas Republicans to take a majority of House seats in 2004.

We're sure you remember the redistricting. DeLay & Co. pushed for redrawing the congressional district lines in the middle of the decade, an unusual move Republicans said was prompted by previous Democratic gerrymandering. So to correct that, the Republicans re-gerrymandered and — surprise! — gained six seats in the House. All sorts of criticism ensued, including the (in)famous walkout by a group of Texas lawmakers.

Problem is, critics claim the new distirct lines disenfranchise black and Hispanic voters, a violation of the Voting Rights Act. They also say the Legislature "acted purely for partisan gain when it threw out the [old] district boundaries." In short, we guess they're saying the new districts were intended to get six more Republicans in Congress? Ah, yes. Mission accomplished. Supporters of the plan point out that Texas now has one more black or Hispanic lawmaker than it used to, which really doesn't seem an effective counterargument.

So it'll be interesting to see what the Supreme Court says when it considers the case in the spring. In 2004, the justices upheld a Republican-led redistricting plan in Pennsylvania — but the court has changed, so the outcome of the Texas dispute seems up in the air.