Divergent Takes On Texas Redistricting

By Vince Leibowitz on Mar 2, 2006 in Redistricting

Given that I fear that the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court might not actually serve the interest of justice and actually vote to uphold the partisan gerrymander, I found a couple of divergent takes on yesterday’s oral arguments quite interesting:

Star Telegram: Court seems to favor GOP redistricting arguments

Houston Chronicle:Redistricting’s fate may hinge on whether new map is biased
Though it isn’t clear how the top court will rule, its key centrist voter expresses concernÂ

CQ Politics has a couple of articles that are good reads on the subject, though:

Court’s Decision Could Wipe Primary Off the Books & Race Tops Partisanship in High Court Remap Hearing

In the first article mentioned above, CQPolitics explores what could happen if, in fact, the justices strike down redistricting:

That [primaries null and void] could occur if the court were to rule in favor of the plaintiffs. They accuse the Republican-controlled state legislature of implementing districts for the 2004 elections that so favor the Republicans â€” the party gained six House seats in Texas because of the map â€” as to constitute an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, and of manipulating the districts to disadvantage minority voters.

If the court did overturn the current map â€” which is far from a certainty â€” it likely would require the state to revert to a map drawn by a federal court for the 2002 elections. That panel assumed the responsibility when the legislature, then split between a Democratic-controlled state House and Republican-controlled state Senate, reached a stalemate on redistricting. The Supreme Court, alternatively, could order either the legislature or a lower court to draw yet another new map.

In either case, though, the court likely would require a new primary to be held under whatever district lines were instituted for the 2006 elections.

And, it is noted that there is precedent for just that right here in the Lone Star State:

In June 1996, the Supreme Court invalidated a Dallas-based district and two Houston-area districts as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders in the case of Bush v. Vera: the plaintiff was George W. Bush, then the governor of Texas and now president.

Texas had already held its primaries in March, but a federal court responded to the Supreme Courtâ€™s opinion by ordering that new primaries be held in those three districts and in 10 others that also had to be redrawn under the ruling. The new primary elections that year were held on the national Election Day in November, and December runoff elections were held between the top two vote-getters in each district if no candidate received a majority of votes in the November balloting.

Lord, won’t it be fun receiving campaign mailers right alongside Christmas cards and fruitcakes!

The other article notes:

Many redistricting law experts expect the case to set a lasting precedent on how far the court will go in policing political redistricting â€” either by defining what constitutes an unconstitutional gerrymander, or by tacitly ruling out the kind of intervention into partisan battles that courts have avoided through most of the nationâ€™s history.

Bookmark It