Michael Kaplan

A Texas-Sized Court Case

On Wednesday, US Supreme Court Justices heard a consolidated version of four cases challenging the mid-decade congressional redistricting plan for Texas, drawn by Tom DeLay and his partisan colleagues in 2003. The decision to hear the cases was a surprising one given that the court remanded the cases to a lower one in light of its decision to uphold a partisan gerrymander of Pennsylvania's congressional delegation in 2004.

The four Texas cases represent a bouquet of issues surrounding redistricting in the United States. Over the past fifteen years, the court has heard numerous cases regarding racial and partisan gerrymandering. These four contained elements of both subjects.

The most prominent charges levied by the plaintiffs were that the state violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Democrats by redistricting during mid-decade with the sole purpose of electing more Republicans to the House of Representatives.

Other charges were more locally based, and centered on individual violations of the Voting Rights Act. They alleged that the voting strength of several Hispanic and African American communities were unfairly diluted in order to protect vulnerable Republican incumbents and unseat Democrats. Surprisingly, there was no mention of the memo, written by several Justice Department professionals, recommending that the Department reject the map on the grounds that it did not adequately reflect minority interests. This memo was ignored by Bush Administration appointees who approved the plan.

The final point brought by the plaintiffs was that the use of outdated census data to construct the 2003 plan represented a failure to adhere to the court's well-established one man-one vote standard.

The state's defense laid on the premise that the previous court-drawn map perpetuated a Democratic gerrymander that allowed them to control more than half of the congressional delegation, despite Republicans receiving a majority of votes statewide. They claimed that new map represented Texas's current political reality. However, under the state's previous map, Republicans enjoyed majorities in 20 of 32 districts, yet elected Democrats in six of them.

It is not clear how the justices will rule, but it is possible that they will not divide into their usual ideological camps. Given existing precedents and the court's current makeup, it is unlikely that Texas's congressional apportionment will be overturned. However, it is quite probable that the court will order the state to adjust the lines using current census data and/or reinstate the district containing the Hispanic community of Webb County that had been cracked into separate districts. Considering that Texas's primary is this week, whatever changes that are ordered may not take place until 2008.

The Rehnquist Court had been somewhat clear that it would allow partisan gerrymandering, as long as Congress and state legislatures approved. Given the makeup of the Roberts Court, it would be a surprise if they were to reverse course. Citizens hoping to establish fair standards for reapportionment and redistricting will have to do so by electing good-government oriented public officials with a to office, as the channels of litigation appear to be closing.

Michael Kaplan: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 7:00 AM, Mar 06, 2006 in Democracy
Permalink | Email to Friend