[EL] Texas case decided by Supreme Court

[Adam Bonin]

I've been asked to help explain to my audience just how this proceeds along
the two tracks right now (WD TX, DC).  What, now, are the key dates, events,
etc?

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick
Hasen
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:34 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: [EL] Texas case decided by Supreme Court

 


Breaking News: Supreme Court Decides Texas Redistricting Case, Reverses
Lower Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28312>  


Posted on  <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28312> January 20, 2012 7:25 am by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

In a unanimous per curiam opinion
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-713.pdf> , the Supreme Court
(with Justice Thomas concurring separately in the judgment) has reversed the
maps drawn by the three judge court and remanded to draw new maps under new
standards.

The Court's plan is much along the lines I anticipated,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27599>  a compromised suggested by Justice
Kagan (and which, as Rick Pildes pointed out
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28086> , gives Texas much of what it wants).
Speaking non-technically, the Supreme Court held that the three-judge court
erred in starting its redistricting plan from scratch.  It should have
started with the state's plan, and then adjusted to the extent the plan
violated the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution.

More technically, the Court held that as to the Voting Rights Act section 2
standards, the three-judge court is not to defer on those districts where it
appears more likely than not that Texas is in violation of the section 2
standards.  (Burden appears to be on the VRA section 2 plaintiffs.)

As to section 5, however, because only the Washington DC court can decide on
preclearance, the Court is not to take the section 5 preclearance question
into account unless those plans have a reasonable probability of failing
section 5 review (a tough standard for challengers to the law to meet).

So this is a big win for Texas, and will require the drawing of districts
much more likely to favor Texas's interim plan (and therefore favor
Republicans over Democrats favored by the three-judge court's original map).

One caveat: at most these lines will last for one election, as the
preclearance issue being decided by the Washington court will dictate the
preclearance going forward, and as the section 2 issue finally gets resolved
by the three judge court in Texas.

Justice Thomas, in his concurrence, says that preclearance is not necessary
because section 5 is unconstutional-the 800 pound gorilla in the background
of this case.

And on timing, oh yeah, Rick Pildes owes me a beer.
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28086> 

 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%
3Fp%3D28312&title=Breaking%20News%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20Decides%20Texas%20R
edistricting%20Case%2C%20Reverses%20Lower%20Court&description=> Share

Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26> ,
redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> , Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>  | Comments Off 

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120120/36d33442/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120120/36d33442/attachment.png>